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 28 of 37.
“Further, what is the rationale behind providing for such powers to deal with matters of national security under the FA when there are other pieces of legislation, such as the Penal Code, the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act that deal with matters that might threaten national security? Can I also find out if we will be publishing the reasons and bases for the classification decisions by IMDA and registered film CAs? Clearly communicating the grounds for decisions ensures accountability and transparency. The Bill also introduces a new co-classification scheme, which has been welcomed by distributors as it shortens the processing time for classifications. However, one concern raised by filmmakers is that an external film CA hired by the distributors may be incentivised to cut out shots to achieve lower age-restriction ratings. Film reviewers would have reviewed and recommended the uncut version, while audiences only see the cut version and may not be aware of what they have missed out, since the full advisory is only available on the IMDA online classification database. Will the Minister consider requiring all films with cuts to be expressly listed and visibly advertised as such so that consumers are not shortchanged? This could be done, as suggested earlier, on the classification label that IMDA must issue under section 18(1)(b). For example, a PG13 film could be advertised as PG13 (Edited). Next, sections 34 and 34A extend certain enforcement powers of an enforcement officer. They are granted special enforcement powers that may be exercised without warrant. Can the Minister clarify who will be classified as enforcement officers?”
“While there is no guarantee of such a right to audience even under the current FA, the opportunity to be heard is an important procedural safeguard. Further, would the minutes of the Committee of Appeal's deliberations on a classification and grounds for decision on the appeal be published? Similarly, while a decision of a Minister on a matter of national security is deemed to be final, will the Minister be providing reasons for his decision? Next, I do welcome the new section 25, which will increase the number of members sitting on the Committee of Appeal, which may provide for greater diversity of views. Can I check with the Minister if we will be including more members of the film community and civil society who can provide professional perspectives and feedback reflecting civic and consumer concerns? Next, under section 16, IMDA may refuse to classify films in five stated categories. Can the Minister clarify how the proposed category of "Refused Classification" differs from the current rating of "Not Allowed for All Ratings" (NAR)? Filmmakers also wanted clarifications that the BFC will watch and assess the films that are subsequently deemed to be "Refused Classification" notwithstanding the language, which may be understood as suggesting that the film will not be reviewed at all? I would also like to seek further clarification on the scope of those categories. Can the Minister clarify what would constitute a "prohibited film" and "a film against national security" respectively? Can the Minister also shed some light on the type of films that might be refused classification under the catch-all provision "contains any material prescribed" that is not currently already covered by the first four categories?”
“I do believe I met up the same filmmakers that Member Kok Heng Leun met as well because some of the clarifications that I will say will be similar to his. They have emphasised to me the need to have checks and balances in the regulatory and enforcement framework. Films, with their transformative powers, are a crucial part of our nation's arts and culture. It is important to protect the ability of filmmakers to tell their stories openly, honestly and with integrity, and to preserve the right of audiences to enjoy those stories. But at the same time, there is also a need to have regulations in place. Before raising my questions for clarifications, I would, first, like to commend IMDA for engaging with the filmmakers and the public in their review of the FA, which started in May last year and involved several meetings. The filmmakers that I met highlighted to me several changes in the final Bill that resulted from IMDA's consultation process on the Bill. This is a good example of how the public can be constructively engaged in the law-making process. Sir, allow me to now seek some clarifications. The new sections 24 to 27 set out the appeals process for classification decisions, for which there are two appellate authorities – a Committee of Appeal and the Minister. I understand that, presently, filmmakers are given the opportunity to present their case before the FAC. Filmmakers I have spoken with have indicated that this current practice satisfies them that the decision was made in accordance with due process even if the appeal does not succeed. Will this positive practice be maintained, and will filmmakers continue to have the opportunity to present their case before the Committee of Appeal and/or the Minister in an appeal against a classification decision?”
“Sir, my parents and my sister played the most important role in developing my values and instilling in me a sense of compassion, honesty and integrity. And it was my late Daddy who always taught me to speak up, to question, to always focus on solutions and to try my best, no matter what. But films probably played the second most important role in shaping my life, shaping the person I am today. At 14, I watched a documentary, or film called "Gorillas in the Mist" that told the true life story of Dian Fossey, an American lady who gave up her good life in America to go to Africa to study and save gorillas. That movie singlehandedly changed my life and probably my Mommy's, too. I watched that movie with her and, halfway through, I turned to her and said, "Mommy, I want to be just like Dian once I grow up". Mommy freaked out at the end of the movie because Dian was murdered by the poachers, and she thought this was probably what her son wanted to do. And I did. I spent the last 17 years of my life protecting animals. Like Dian, I, too, studied primates, but gibbons and not gorillas, and, thankfully, unlike Dian, I have not been killed. Yet. Films, continue to shape my life – from the food I eat, to the places I visit and to the father I am today. Films continue to play that important role. And so, the amendments we are proposing today will not only have an impact on just the films industry, but on all of us, on our society because, ultimately, we are not just what we eat but what we watch. Sir, in drafting my speech for this Bill, I met up with filmmakers and they have some concerns about the effect of the proposed amendments.”
“But we will have to bear in mind that they may not be in possession of any evidence to support that Police report, due to the CSO. Can the Minister provide more clarity on this issue? Sir, I do understand the need for and the importance of this Bill and I hope that the Minister can address the concerns I have raised. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Can the Minister provide some clarifications on why this is needed? I understand that a member of the public would not be penalised if he/she was taking a photo and sending it to the authorities via SGSecure. In any given situation, there could be many people using their phones concurrently for different reasons, some violating the CSO and some not. How then would this be effectively policed? Furthermore, I believe it would be beneficial to have more clarity on certain language used in the Bill. In clauses 18, 19, 20 and 48, the Police may "use force as is reasonably necessary", "including the use of lethal weapons". Can it be more clearly defined as to what constitutes "reasonable force"? While empowering the Police with necessary powers to maintain public order, we also need to balance this with safeguards to prevent the misuse of this power. The Bill now also grants some special powers to "civilian assistants", which Members of this House have raised as well, which I understand was not previously included in POPA. How can we ensure that these civilian assistants are sufficiently trained, particularly to know what "reasonable force" entails? Some members of the public are also concerned that with the CSO, if any cases of potential Police brutality were to occur, we would not have independent documentation of the event. This may lead to some questions on whether there are sufficient safeguards to prevent a scenario of disproportionate power. MHA has since clarified that if members of the public have any allegations of misconduct or abuse of powers by Police Officers, when POSSPA has been activated, they should lodge a Police report or report directly to the Ministry.”
“The Bill proposes that the Police be given the same set of powers, whether it is dealing with acts of terrorism, or sit-down demonstrations which attract a large group of sympathisers. Why? I do understand that there is a concern that these assemblies might lead to violence and injuries, but can the Minister clarify what exactly is the "high threshold" for the activation of the special powers spelt out in the Bill? What will trigger the activation? I would also like to seek clarity on the size of an assembly that could qualify as a "large-scale public disorder". When would a crowd be large enough for these special powers to be activated? For some members of the public, it may also seem excessive, in these cases, to allow the Police enhanced powers to stop and question individuals within the incident areas, and, if the individual does not comply, to issue a fine of up to $20,000, or two years' imprisonment, or in clauses 18, 19 and 20, to use force, including lethal weapons, to ensure compliance with orders. Again, members of the public are clearly supportive of the use of lethal weapons to ensure compliance with orders when there is a terrorist attack but the concern of some members of the public is whether we need to use such lethal powers for a sit-down demonstration. Can the Minister address these concerns? Next, I believe that the CSO in clause 30 is absolutely necessary in situations where "live" communications could give terrorists the upper hand. We do not want to see an embarrassing repeat of the Mumbai attacks in 2008 or the Manila hostage crisis in 2010. Related to my previous point, I would like to ask the rationale again for requiring such a stop order, again, for "acts causing large-scale public disorder".”
“Sir, like other Members in this House, I am in favour of providing the Police with enhanced powers to maintain public order and safety. We have to look to incidents around the world to learn about the evolving methods that terrorists use to inflict maximum damage and terror. Even if these incidents have not occurred in Singapore, there is no guarantee that it will not happen here. And when they do, we need to be prepared for it. The POSSPA Bill is an important step to equip and empower our security agencies to mount an effective response, should we one day need it. While I support the Bill in its intentions, allow me to seek a few clarifications on its details. In clause 3, "serious incidents" are defined to constitute terrorist acts, acts of serious violence, acts causing large-scale public disorder, and so on. Members of this House, past and present, have continuously debated about striking the right balance between maintaining public order and proportionate responses to achieving that order. We have constantly been recalibrating this balance, not just today, but in 2009 when we discussed the POA, and again in 2014 after the Little India Riots. In that light, can the Minister clarify why "acts causing large-scale public disorder" under part (c) of clause 3 are defined as a "serious incident" on the same scale as violent acts of terrorism? The Bill provides an example of such an act, describing "a sit-down demonstration...(which) attracts a large group of sympathisers who voluntarily join the sit-in… Their presence starts to impede the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic", which many other Members of this House have quoted as well.”
“Significantly, the amendment to section 88(1) proposes to make the imposition of a penalty, warning and/or reprimand mandatory by changing the wording to "must give" from the original "may give". The question is, why are we changing from a "may" to a "must"? Lawyers I have spoken to are concerned about the mandatory imposition because this seems to render the practitioner's opportunity to be heard on the matter under section 88(3) futile. In the interest of fairness and in line with the right to be heard, the practitioner really ought to be able to make her or his case on the matter and section 88(3) should remain. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify how section 88(3) is consistent with the mandatory imposition under section 88(1)? Further, I note that the imposition of the remedial measures by Council is sought to be introduced by way of a new section 88(1A), but section 88(3) of the Act remains unchanged. This seems to suggest that a practitioner will not be heard before remedial measures are imposed upon him or her by the Council. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether a practitioner also has the right to be heard before Council imposes remedial measures on him in the same spirit of fairness? Sir, while we welcome the introduction of measures that focus on remediation rather than punishment, I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify whether the right of the practitioner to be heard will be preserved. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Lawyers I spoke to welcome, in particular, three changes that have been proposed. The first relates to the appointment of law experts in cases before SICC, a move, no doubt put in place to improve the quality of arguments raised in SICC on foreign law issues. The second relates to the establishment of the UM Fund to be administered by the Law Society of Singapore. The amendment will result in certain monies that are unclaimed being put to use in, amongst other things, pro bono services. Finally, there is the introduction of the imposition of remedial measures upon a regulated legal practitioner by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore or the Disciplinary Tribunal. Previously, the options were limited to the issuance of a warning, a reprimand or the imposition of a fine. These were aimed at censuring and punishing the errant regulated legal practitioner and may not have addressed root causes for the impeached conduct. While the precise type of remedial measures that may be imposed will be set out in further subsidiary legislation, it is heartening to see that there is now another option available which is not entirely punitive in nature. However, it is with this last change that I now seek clarifications. The Bill proposes to allow an Inquiry Committee to recommend to the Council of the Law Society of Singapore that a penalty, warning, reprimand, and/or requirement of compliance with remedial measures be imposed on a practitioner, without any formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal. The Council of the Law Society can then make such a determination under the new section 87 of the Act.”
“Whichever the case, it would go against the primary objective of this Bill, which is to promote more energy-efficient methods of production to drive down carbon emissions. This is certainly not what we want. Next, greener alternatives for industries and power generation will require substantial investments and all-round support. The Ministry has said that revenue from the tax will fund the green initiatives via two existing schemes: the Productivity Grant (Energy Efficiency) (PG (EE)), and the Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F). The green community is heartened to know that the funds from the tax will go back into the green initiatives. With a new stream of funds available, there are hopes that greater support can be given to promote the use of clean energy. I would like to ask the Ministry if it intends to develop new schemes with the new stream of funds, to further assist industries in the transition towards a low-carbon future and, specifically, if it would consider using these funds to directly subsidise the production, R&D of clean energy in Singapore. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Sir, I am in favour of establishing a framework for taxing businesses responsible for high GHG emissions. Climate change is one of the most serious problems of our time, and the consequences of unchecked climate change for every country, including Singapore, are likely to be grave. In Singapore, industries are the largest emitters of GHG. This Bill is thus an important and necessary step to manage Singapore’s carbon emissions and is aligned with our commitment to the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless, many green groups have raised queries and concerns with me. Please allow me to share some of them and seek a few short clarifications on details of the implementation of our carbon tax. Green groups have shared concerns on the implementation of the Fixed Price Credit Based (FPCB) system, as it seems to require companies to purchase credits at the beginning of each reporting period. If this is so, companies would thus have to make an accurate estimate of how much emissions the facility would produce for the reporting period and buy the corresponding number of credits. Can the Minister confirm this? The main concern here is whether any unused credits can be used in the next reporting period. Can the Minister clarify this? What would happen to the unused credits? Would they be wasted? Do the credits ever expire? If unused credits do expire before the next reporting period, I am concerned that facilities that have over-bought credits may be compelled to use less energy-efficient technologies, so as to use up the credits they have already purchased and are unable to transfer or sell. This is the worst-case scenario. However, it is also possible that companies in this situation would feel no incentive to reduce emissions as they have bought more than enough credits.”
“However, as the Senior Minister of State has mentioned earlier, there is no need for such an examinee to be served with a notice under section 63 even though the examinee can now be made to answer a broader scope of questions equivalent to that under section 63. My concern is that notices will never be served on persons found on premises when they are questioned on relevant matters beyond documents relating to the investigation. The requirement for notice allows time for a person required to act under it to consider the request made and perhaps seek legal advice on it. Why deprive these persons of this right? Can the Senior Minister of State clarify again why we are making this amendment and perhaps why did we have this requirement for serving a notice in the first place? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, the amendment relating to the provision on application of confidential advice by the Competition Commission on whether an anticipated merger is likely to lessen competition within any market in Singapore and thereby falling foul of the Act is very welcomed. I understand that this seeks to codify an already available procedure. Statutory force is likely to further assure businesses approaching the Commission for such advice that such an approach will be treated on a confidential basis. Sir, I only have one clarification for this Bill. The one aspect of the proposed amendments that is of concern is the powers of persons entering into premises with or without a warrant for the purpose of investigations. Currently, investigating officers, inspectors and other authorised persons may enter into premises with or without a warrant for the purpose of carrying out investigations. Persons on the premises can be required to: (a) Produce documents relating to any matter relevant to the investigatons; (b) Provide an explanation of that document, if it is so produced; and (c) State to the best of his knowledge where any such document is found. These are specific questions relating to documents relevant to the investigations. If the Commission or Inspector wishes to ask other questions on matters relevant to the investigation, the person must be served with a notice in writing under section 63. The new section 63(4A) allows a person found on the premises to be orally examined and required to produce answers relevant to the investigation. The statement has to be recorded in writing, read over in a language understood by the examinee and signed by him under the new section 63(4B).”
“If so, I am fully supportive of the amendment as the mere asking of a question is sometimes enough to provoke trauma in an alleged victim. This is lacking under section 154, which only prevents questions that have already been asked from being answered. My second question on the scope of sexual offences under the new section 154A is the types of offences that are considered sexual offences are set out in Part 2 of the new First Schedule. References there are made to several offences under the Penal Code and the Women's Charter. Most of the offences referred to are capable, at first sight, of being considered of a sexual nature. There are others which are not as clear. For instance, there is reference to section 356 of the Penal Code, which criminalises the assault or the use of criminal force to commit theft of property committed by a person. While I can understand that, in certain cases, the prosecution prefers a charge under section 356 where sexual violence was used in the course of committing theft of property because of ease of proof, this also casts too broad a net as there may be other cases that do not involve violations of a sexual nature. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify that an offence will not be deemed to be of a sexual nature just because it falls under section 356? Sir, notwithstanding all of the above clarifications, I do stand in support of both Bills. 1.21 pm”
“Will the Minister consider making video-recordings mandatory for all offences punishable with death or life imprisonment and for all vulnerable suspects, including juveniles, the elderly, the cognitively impaired or the psychologically disordered, regardless of the alleged offence? Vulnerable suspects are exceptionally vulnerable to giving false confessions and should be given special protection in the investigative process. Next, this point relates in part to the rationale behind the Evidence (Amendment) Bill that victims of sexual and child abuse offences require special protection. Aside from mitigating the trauma of the trial process on these particularly vulnerable victims, will the Minister consider enhancing the penalties or creating new offences where children are preyed on by online predators? The ease of access and anonymity of the Internet heightens the susceptibility of children to exploitation by online predators. Next, the Evidence (Amendment) Bill seeks to introduce a new section 154A to the Evidence Act to restrict two things: first, the questions that can be put to the alleged victim and, second, the type of evidence that can be adduced about the alleged victim. My first query relates to the types of questions that can be put to an alleged victim. There is currently a provision in section 154 of the Evidence Act to prevent such questions from being asked of an alleged victim. Can I clarify what questions the proposed section 154A(1)(a) will cover that do not already fall under the scope of section 154? Can I also clarify if the combined effect of section 154A(1)(a) and 154A(2)(c) is intended to stop questions before they are even asked?”
“It deters the use of coercive practices by investigators, deters false claims of involuntariness, assists judges in more accurately assessing the voluntariness and accuracy of statements made in custody and increases public trust in the Police. However, these benefits can only be achieved if proper safeguards are put in place. Video-recording will only reduce instances of false confessions if it captures the entire interaction between interrogator and accused. In the words of Prof Michael Hor, "the purpose of such a scheme is defeated if the whole interrogation process spans across hours but only a portion of the statement or confession was recorded on tape". Will the Senior Minister of State consider including in regulations or guidelines on the use of video-recording the requirement that the entire interview must be recorded and that the Police do not engage in unrecorded pre-interrogation exchanges or preliminary interviews with the suspect except where absolutely necessary? Studies have shown that footage primarily focused on the suspect causes a "camera perspective bias" where viewers are given the notion that the statement was voluntarily given even when it was not. Will the Minister consider including in regulations or guidelines that the footage should have equal focus on both suspect and interrogator and, ideally, also shows the full extent of space in the room? Lastly, for this point, I note that only rape under section 375(1)(a) has been listed as an offence for which statements must be video-recorded.”
“Further, can the Senior Minister of State clarify the rationale for limiting criminal compensation for a deceased victim’s dependants to funeral expenses and bereavement? Sir, this next one has created a fair amount of concern amongst members of the public which the Senior Minister of State has clarified slightly. Can she clarify further the rationale behind section 83(2), which departs from the current status quo where a woman is searched by a woman officer? What checks will be in place to ensure that such searches are made with strict regard to decency as provided for under section 83(3)? Next, lawyers have raised to me the concerns that the threshold for re-opening of criminal cases is too high, as fellow Members have raised previously. The impetus behind instituting the review application framework seems to be to prevent the opening of floodgates to applications to reopen cases. However, it bears noting that when seen in the context of all the cases that go before the Court, the applications to re-open cases are few and far between. While finality of proceedings is a key concern, ensuring that miscarriages of justice do not occur is as compelling a consideration. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify that the new review application framework should not be interpreted to allow floodgates arguments to always prevail and that considerations of justice and the prevention of error should be given due weight, even at this late stage of the proceedings? Next, I do welcome the introduction of video-recording for some Police interviews as it ensures greater transparency of the interview process.”
“What is notable from the press reports is the difficulty that the Judge faced with the limited sentencing options that were available. In this case, the defence lawyers had asked for reformative training. The prosecution asked for a jail term of between 15 and 18 years with at least 15 strokes of the cane. The prosecution argued that the offender lacked the requisite cognitive abilities to understand the programmes because of his low IQ and was unlikely to benefit from reformative training. I am not sure though if this is the signal that we want to send out as a society when dealing with such an offender. Ultimately, Justice Woo had said that this case had exposed larger issues at stake, including limited sentencing options available to a Court faced with a young offender who has some intellectual disability. I would thus like to ask the Senior Minister of State if this concern can be addressed and whether we are looking into the sentencing options available to a Court faced with a young offender with some intellectual disability. Next, on this Bill, I am supportive of the amendments to the victim compensation regime, which makes it easier for victims to obtain compensation through the criminal Courts, increase victim participation in the compensation order process and allow dependants to obtain compensation in certain cases. The effectiveness of the regime will depend on how easy it is for victims and the dependants to navigate the process. As such, can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on the procedures for seeking compensation from the criminal Courts? Can I also find out if there will be a limit on the compensation that can be ordered?”
“Sir, one of the key amendments in this Bill is to make community sentences available to a wider range of offenders. Community sentences provide our Criminal Courts with alternative sentencing options. They focus on rehabilitating rather than punishing the offender. This proposed amendment is just one example, which indicates a more holistic and reformative approach to criminal justice. This is a welcomed change. There are instances in which the full brunt of society's condemnation of an offence must be brought upon a particular offender. However, it must not be forgotten that rehabilitation is aimed at changing the root causes of an individual’s criminal behaviour and should always be foremost in mind. Moving forward, can I ask the Minister whether we will eventually let the Criminal Courts decide in which instances a community sentence can be imposed? Can I also ask if, in line with the spirit of these amendments, the Minister would consider providing our Criminal Courts with more alternative sentencing options? A recent case illustrates the difficulties that Courts face because of limitations in sentencing options. The Judge will be releasing written grounds and what I will discuss is informed by media reports. In this case, an individual was convicted for sexual assault and rape of a 16-year-old girl and sentenced to reformative training. There are some who may consider this a light sentence. They may change their mind when they learn that the offender was 14 years old when he committed the offence and has a low IQ of 61. I do not, for one moment, suggest that the actions of this young offender should be minimised in any way. His actions have severely traumatised a young girl and she is likely to remain scarred for life.”
“Just one last clarification, Sir. If I could ask if MOM is willing to incentivise the process so as to try to incentivise the employers when they apply for the work permit to apply also for the bank accounts for their work permit holders. In that way, we can reach 100% of the work permit holders having bank accounts here in Singapore.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Can I just check with the Minister of State whether MOM does track the number of employers that open a bank account for their work permit holders when they apply for their work permits? And two, does MOM know what proportion of work permit holders currently have bank accounts here in Singapore?”
“Can I just confirm that for wrongful dismissal, the ECT can recognise damages that go beyond the notice period; they do not just compensate on the one or two months' notice that they were not given?”
“Sir, the typical recourse for wrongful dismissal has been the notice period, the argument being that the only loss that one has suffered is the loss of not having given notice. So, can the ECT also recognise damages that go beyond the notice period, so that we also recognise the mental and emotional anguish that one has suffered in such situations?”
“Sir, can I just ask how soon, so I would not keep asking the same question again?”
“Sir, I appreciate I have asked this before, but it has actually been a year since I last asked this question. Can I also ask the Senior Minister of State whether Singapore is studying how Hong Kong has implemented their domestic ivory ban, considering that Hong Kong has a far larger ivory market and has given three years for the full stock disposal?”
“I think Senior Minister of State Amy would be relieved that my question is not for her. I thank Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat for sharing the various improvements to CDMP, but I would like to ask for one more improvement, which is, addition of more auto-immune conditions, please.”
“CDMP is meant to allow patients with chronic conditions to use MediSave and reduce out of pocket expenses. However, it currently covers only two auto-immune conditions, that is, rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. Members from the Auto-immune Illness Support Group Singapore have bravely shared with me about their conditions, which are lifelong, chronic and not curable. They can only manage their symptoms by regular doctor visits and long-term medications, without which it can result in serious complications and prolonged hospitalisation. Because of individual reactions to medications, some have no choice but to take high-cost, non-subsidised medications. Based on an internal survey by the group, there is a huge range and no single most common auto-immune condition. Will the Ministry consider including more auto-immune conditions into CDMP, allowing patients to use their MediSave and relieve their financial burden? Pricing of Vaccines”
“Sir, three questions. But first, let me say a big "thank you" to my now favourite Minister – Minister Lawrence Wong. Can I confirm that the removal of the mutual consent requirement is with immediate effect? Second, does it apply to people who were divorced before the announcement today? And third, can I check with Minister Desmond Lee whether we can increase AVA's budget?”
“Can the Minister also share whether HDB intends to build more of such blocks and, if so, when? Increasing AVA's Budget Sir, I have raised animal protection issues for the past two COSes and, this year, I really want to record my deep appreciation for the good work that the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has done and to thank them for the tremendous progress they have made in the animal protection movement in Singapore. While there are still issues to be worked on, nothing and nobody is perfect, but we are definitely heading in the right direction and the collaborative approach has yielded much success for both our residents and the animals. So, this really is not a cut per se. In fact, I propose we do not cut their budget but hope that the Minister can consider increasing their budget so that the team that has done amazing work with very limited resources can do even more this year and can achieve even more progress. Local Farming Sector”
“Sir, going through a divorce is not emotionally easy for both parents and their children. And it makes matters worse when they have to worry about whether they have a home to live in after their divorce. In response to the Public Petition I filed, MND has stated that "a range of Government agencies work together to ensure that no child is without adequate housing, regardless of whether his or her parents are single or married". But the problem arises when parents do not have sole care and control of all the children and all the children are aged below 18 at the time of the divorce. They will need to get their ex-spouse’s consent to apply for subsidised public housing. This consent requirement is difficult since their relationship is clearly strained. I also note that sole care and control are now seldom awarded. I do understand that in the last three years, HDB granted more than 200 requests to waive the consent requirement but I hope that the Minister can consider waiving this requirement altogether for all divorcees. Integrating Rental Units into Community Sir, I have two rental blocks in Nee Soon East and they are, in a sense, isolated from most of the other HDB blocks, with a school on one side and industrial properties on the other side. I feel the stigma from living in a rental flat is strong, especially when they seem to be isolated from the community, and I worry about how children brought up in this environment will feel and what the impact is on them. I understand that there are existing HDB blocks where rental units are integrated with sold units in the same block, thereby integrating the community. Can the Minister share HDB's experience with integrating rental units in the community and whether it has been beneficial for the children living there?”
“I have two questions, Sir. Can I ask if MEWR will be studying the issue of the usage of single-used plastic bags further, especially with regard to implementing the usage plan? It has been proven effective in other countries. It has resulted in the reduction of the use of plastic bags, which is exactly what MEWR's role is. So, I want to stress that we should look into that further and to stress also that this is not a ban on the use of plastic bags. Secondly, does MEWR have data on the number of plastic bags used in Singapore? If not, does MEWR intend to collect such data so that we can measure the effectiveness of the current retailers' schemes?”
“Sir, like Dr Chia Shi-Lu, I have previously raised the issue of safe recycling or disposal of our growing volume of e-waste. I understand that 60,000 tonnes of e-waste is generated in Singapore each year and this number will only rise in the coming years. This is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently as e-waste pose both health and environmental problems. I am glad that companies have stepped forward to promote the recycling of e-waste. But this is clearly not going to solve the problem. The Ministry mentioned last year that it is looking into a national e-waste management system. Can the Ministry provide an update on the plans to manage e-waste and whether it can urgently establish a programme to ensure that e-waste is recycled or disposed of safely? Microplastics”
“Furthermore, how did the Ministry opt for a Fixed Price Credit Based system, instead of a simple tax, or an Emission Trading System? Coping with a Low-Carbon Economy Next, with the impending implementation of the carbon tax and our move towards a low-carbon economy, companies may be concerned about difficulties in making the transition and increased business costs. The myth that a sustainable development is bad for a country’s economy should be dispelled. It is estimated that meeting our climate change targets would generate additional investments worth $40 trillion globally by 2050. Decoupling emissions from growth provides a golden opportunity to stimulate economic growth by boosting research and innovation and creating new jobs. In any case, all of us, including businesses, have a moral duty to safeguard the environment for the benefit of current and future generations. To ensure the benefits of a low-carbon economy can be fully reaped at all levels, how is the Government intending to help companies in Singapore prepare for the carbon tax and transition towards sustainable development? Carbon Emission”
“Sir, Minister Masagos declared 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. The public was invited to pledge now to fight climate change. Schools and organisations were invited to join in as well. Green groups were also invited to work alongside the Government to organise events and activities to raise awareness on climate change. This represented a strong effort by the Ministry to meet Singapore's Paris Commitment. However, recently, due to public feedback, I raised a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) decision on the coal gasification plant on Jurong Island. The public felt that the Government does not seem coordinated on our climate change commitments. As such, I would like to ask to what extent the Year of Climate Action is a whole-of-Government initiative with alignment from the other Ministries? Has MEWR set certain targets to be fulfilled by each Ministry? Furthermore, how are the various actions and initiatives under the Year of Climate Action measured in term of impact? Implementation of the Carbon Tax Next, I am heartened by the Ministry's bold action to implement the Carbon Tax encouraging companies to consider environmental, and not just financial costs in their business decisions. The Carbon Tax is, undoubtedly, a milestone, an important pillar in our climate action. 1.15 pm Since its announcement, details on the carbon tax may not be fully understood by the public. As such, can the Ministry share how the carbon tax will be implemented? Our carbon tax price of $5 per tonne is significantly lower than that of other legislations. I understand our pro-business stance but this may not accurately reflect the price paid by the environment. Could the Ministry share how they settled on that figure?”
“Chairman, I have three clarifications. First with regard to my cut on Maternity Protection, can I ask whether Singapore will consider ratifying the ILO Convention on Maternity Protection? Second, I might have missed the reply, but can MOM set up and maintain the public database for employers to voluntarily declare that they have written policies to manage workplace harassments or that they have implemented the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment? The third question, to the Minister of State, is whether he can clarify why employers need to pay salaries of S Pass holders electronically but not for Work Permit holders. I thought I should also respond to the Minister's shoelace story, just to share with Members of this House that if you do see a wild animal, it is best not to run. Best to stay still.”
“Sir, many employers of non-domestic workers continue to pay salary in cash. The only documentation that payments have been made is salary vouchers. However, salary vouchers are easily forged and might not tally with the cash amount paid. When workers lodge complaints and salary vouchers are disputed, it is very difficult for MOM to ascertain where the truth lies. Will MOM consider making it mandatory to pay salaries to non-domestic workers through banks, creating an audit trail as to how much was actually paid? As we move into a cashless society, there is no doubt that all migrant workers will have a bank account. Many states in the Gulf ‒ the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman ‒ have also implemented such a mandatory requirement. In addition, their laws require banks, payroll outsourced providers or employers themselves to certify monthly that full salaries have been paid, creating an early-warning system for the authorities.”
“Sir, employers should ensure a safe and inclusive workplace for all workers, including by preventing and responsibly handling workplace sexual harassment. However, the Ministry does not track how many employers have implemented the Tripartite Advisory on managing workplace harassment. The Association of Women for Action and Research's (AWARE's) Sexual Assault Care Centre saw 108 cases of workplace-related incidents in 2017, a rise from 91 cases in 2016 and 66 cases in 2015. This suggests workplace harassment is a common problem that employees are increasingly voicing out against. Can the Ministry intensify promotion of the Advisory standards to employers, including setting up and maintaining a public database for employers to voluntarily declare that they have written policies to manage workplace harassment? Sexual Harassment in the Workplace”
“Sir, there is no job protection after a mother returns from maternity leave. Mothers have experienced being treated harshly or assessed unfairly at work due to their pregnancy, and some have been dismissed subsequently upon their return from maternity leave. In the United Kingdom (UK), it is unfair dismissal and maternity discrimination if an employer does not allow an employee to return to the same job after maternity leave. The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Maternity Protection sets the international standard in guaranteeing a woman's right to return to the same position or an equivalent position paid at the same rate at the end of her maternity leave. Can the Ministry enhance protections for mothers by giving employees the right to return to their job and prohibit any termination during an employee's pregnancy, maternity leave, as well as three months after returning to work from her maternity leave? Supporting Families in the Workplace”
“Can I just check with the Senior Minister of State whether discretion can be granted to the Director of Legal Aid when granting legal aid?”
“Sir, last year, I asked whether some form of discretion can be given to the Director of Legal Aid when granting legal aid. Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah replied that they will review and update the means test and qualifying criteria to ensure access to justice for those of limited means. In 2017, 92% of applications passed the means test, while 87% passed the merits test. While it is heartening to note that a large majority is granted legal aid, there may, nevertheless, be cases that fall through the gaps. It was stated that the review would include considering granting discretion to the Director of Legal Aid for exceptional cases that do not pass the means and merits test. Can MinLaw provide an update on this review? Further, how will MinLaw ensure that persons of limited means continue to have access to civil and criminal legal aid?”
“Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that SPS will be extending family bonding programmes. Can I check specifically if it will be extending the programme where they can have visits when they are not separated by glass panels from their families? Secondly, for the mentorship session with ex-offenders, can I check how regular is this and whether it is open to all inmates? And for the initial incarceration phase, can I just confirm that programmes are offered to inmates during this first to three months when they are incarcerated? Lastly, I just want to share that public servants I have spoken to are very appreciative of the Parliamentary Secretary's efforts and how hands on he is at the Prisons.”
“The Children’s Day event at Tanah Merah Prison last year, where 24 inmates were allowed an open visit where they could hug and hold their loved ones instead of being separated by a glass panel, was an excellent event. They were also not in their prison uniform. Can the Ministry extend this programme to more inmates and conduct more of such visits more often? In the words of Focus on the 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." Mentoring Programmes for Inmates Next, current in-care programmes for inmates feature psychological and cognitive-based curriculum and counselling, targeting the thinking and behavioural aspects of inmates. Programmes can come across as overly clinical, diagnostic, prescriptive, featuring lecture-style methods. I hope the Ministry will consider featuring more inspirational, experiential and reflective learning approaches. For example, through mentoring, where community partners or representatives can come in regularly through group or one-on-one mentoring for a period of time. This could complement the "through-care" strategy of SPS, where the mentoring relationship could carry on into the Aftercare stages of the inmate, making societal reintegration more seamless. This also provides a more humanistic approach targeting the heart of inmates, creating an authentic and positive relationship of trust. Support for Ex-offenders”
“Sir, current rehabilitation programmes target the needs of ex-offenders in criminal thinking, employment and family support. While the public’s support is important during reintegration, the ex-offender himself must be motivated to change. Inmates are the most disoriented, vulnerable and susceptible to influences at the initial incarceration phase. This would be the opportune time to render positive and aspirational elements, such as talks or programmes by successful ex-offenders, who can be role models for inmates during this initial phase. This would be a more powerful source of influence, compared to the counsel of case workers who may seem clinical and unrelatable. This would counter negative influences from fellow inmates discussing past escapades. Can the Ministry 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? Family Ties in Inmate Rehabilitation I recently had coffee with ex-offenders and the stories they shared with me were heartening and inspiring. They made mistakes but they are trying hard to rebuild their lives and we need to help them. If there is one word they used most frequently in their stories, it is "family". As I shared in my cuts last year, I strongly believe we should strengthen family ties to improve the rehabilitation process for inmates. I am grateful that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) is working with Focus on the Family Singapore on running programmes to strengthen family bonds.”
“Sir, the criminal justice system should support survivors of domestic, sexual and other forms of gender-based violence who step forward for help. However, some feel that their experiences are not well-understood and encounter insensitivities as they seek justice. This retraumatises and discourages them from coming forward. Can the Ministry provide mandatory and recurrent capacity-building for members at all levels of the criminal justice system, including lawyers, law enforcement officers and healthcare staff, so that they can better deal with survivors in a gender-sensitive way? For the ongoing review on marital rape, is the Ministry looking at a complete removal of immunity or considering other positions? If so, what are they? Protection of Vulnerable Victims”
“Sir, we are faced with issues, such as terrorism, cybersecurity, a growing refugee crisis, the list goes on. And these issues are often worsened by climate change. A 2017 World Economic Forum poll involving 30,000 millennials from 186 countries found that climate change was their top concern. Another growing concern is the refugee crisis. I visited the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh last month, and what I saw and heard were painful and beyond words. I saw little children's childhood shattered; I saw young people all alone, having watched their family members get killed. All these issues are complex and interlinked, requiring resolute political will by the international community to work together. Singapore has always been a strong supporter of multilateral approaches to global issues. How is Singapore working at the ASEAN level, particularly as the current Chair, as well as at the international level, to address challenges, such as climate change and the Rohingya refugee crisis? 6.15 pm Domestic Resilience on Foreign Policy”
“— unpaid leave for parents of multiples or pre-term babies. This means a lot. But can I ask whether there are plans to legislate this? I also have to add that after looking after twins for a year, there is no way we will have seven kids.”
“Sir, I thank Minister Ong Ye Kung for responding to my Budget speech. Can I ask if the 360-degree review will be made available to all public servants and how regularly this will be done? Can the Minister also respond to the idea of an internal QSM? I do thank Minister Ong also for sharing that all public officers can speak up without fear of getting into trouble. And I am keen to be part of the solution, which is why I spent the past year meeting, listening to and working with public officers and now share their concerns with everyone. I will take Minister Ong's advice and will be more careful about generalisations of public officers. Sir, I also wholeheartedly thank Minister Josephine Teo for announcing the additional four weeks of unpaid leave —”
“Sir, in my Budget speech, I spoke about how we can improve our Public Service and made suggestions. Can the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) consider implementing a 360-degree appraisal review system for all public servants? Can PMO consider putting in place internal quality service managers (QSMs) to look into and ensure that feedback from public servants is looked into? Can PMO also ensure that all public servants have direct communication channels with the top management through regular and frequent all-hands meetings and through pigeon-hole sessions? We should also better recognise public servant contributions and skills beyond their formal academic qualifications. And we need to ensure they work in an environment where they can develop and apply rules in a more flexible way, so as to better serve Singaporeans. Sir, no system is perfect. We can always improve. I thank Minister Heng for sharing that public servants working under him have no fear of speaking up. I hope that this is the same for all Ministries and Statutory Boards and I would be glad to be proven wrong in saying that public servants fear speaking up. Public Understanding of Government Bills”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State. Just one last supplementary question. I know that NEA uses surveys to track the proportion of residents who recycle but I do not think it gives a very accurate picture. So, would NEA be conducting more in-depth reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of our recycling programme?”