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 34 of 37.
“Can the Senior Minister of State provide further details on how we will keep the public path safe for pedestrians beyond setting a maximum speed limit, unladen weight and width? For example, will it be possible to make it mandatory for all riders to install and switch on their headlights at night on their bicycles, PMDs and PABs, especially since the probability of an accident increases when it is dark? Can we also consider making it compulsory for riders of bicycles, PMDs and PABs to dismount and push their bicycles, PMDs and PABs at crowded areas, for example, near bus stops? Even if the riders keep to the speed limits at these areas, it is unlikely to prevent accidents. It would be much safer for all users if they dismount and push. Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify if the rules will or can apply to walkways in front of shops and along HDB void decks, lift lobbies and staircases? A resident wrote to me recently; allow me to read out her concerns. "I would like to highlight that there has been an increasing number of people using bicycles, e-scooters and hoverboards at the walkway along the shops opposite my place. Is there any way to put up signs to advise these riders to dismount from their mobile vehicles when they are at the walkway? Despite the walkway getting very crowded, there are riders who disregard the safety of pedestrians walking along the shops. They continue to ride on their mobile vehicles to squeeze through the crowd instead of dismounting and pushing their vehicles. I am sure many pedestrians, including me, have to keep watching our backs as we walk." Next, can the Senior Minister of State clarify, with regard to clause 30, why we are not criminalising one-off sale of non-complaint PMDs and also by wholesale?”
“Madam, as there appears to be an increasing conflict between pedestrians and users of bicycles, PMDs and PABs, it is timely that we start to regulate the use of public paths. While I stand in support of the Bill, I have several concerns to raise. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the criteria used for classifying public paths? Will members of the public be able to appeal for the reclassification of public paths? Will the Ministry be monitoring the amount of conflicts on a public path and reviewing the classification? And if so, how often will such reviews be conducted? I note that bicycles will be allowed on footpaths, shared paths and the road. I remain concerned about allowing bicycles on public paths as I have no doubt that accidents will occur and, of course, have already occurred numerous times. At my last Meet-the-People Session, I met a resident who was knocked down from the back by a bicycle. The cyclist did stop and said sorry but immediately rode off, leaving her with a fractured wrist. I am especially concerned about children using the public paths. They would be more difficult to spot by the cyclists, and accidents will probably result in more serious injuries and they would be more difficult to avoid as their movements are more erratic as they are often playing on the paths. Of course, we can say that parents have to control their children but we know that, in reality, this might not be possible at all times. I do appreciate that we have set speed limits but how will a user of a conventional bicycle know what speed he or she is travelling at? I also appreciate that we have a new team to enforce these new regulations. But with a vast amount of public paths, we all know that enforcement will be limited as we simply cannot be everywhere at all times.”
“For example, it will be a one-stop shop for services ranging from TCM to specialised wards to treat dementia. It is also not gated and members of the public can enter freely to use its services. There will be other innovative functions, such as a "haze management zone" and a "memory street" on every floor to help the elderly retain their memories. This is an excellent step forward in the design of nursing homes, and I hope that all new nursing homes will also model this approach. I also understand from nurses on the ground that one of the key issues faced is the lack of available beds for patients with higher acuity of care in nursing homes. For example, this includes patients who require tracheostomy care. Such patients are often left to wait for available beds for up to a year while in the acute hospitals. Another category of patients is those undergoing haemodialysis. Many have been rejected by nursing homes, and families find it difficult to cope as there are few options available. I hope this issue would be taken into consideration and new nursing homes will be able to accommodate those with acute conditions as well. Madam, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Madam, the KWSH has contributed its services for years, serving Singapore since 1910. As it transitions into the next phase of its development, I am heartened to see that it continues to serve the public in the spirit of charity. As I learn about its makeover to be reopened as Singapore's largest nursing home, I am assured of our Government's focus on our elderly, and to ensure that they are being well cared for. I was impressed by the amount of effort and planning put in to ensure that it is not just any nursing home, but one which bucks the trend and sets higher standards for all new nursing homes in Singapore. Madam, while I stand in support of this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to seek a few clarifications. I understand MOH has funded the expansion of the KWSH. Can I ask if it will also be providing the funding for the operations of this new entity? Secondly, I was going to ask about the transfer of employees, which the Minister of State has clarified, but could he confirm that all existing employees will be directly re-employed by the new entity? Thirdly, referring to clause 4(1) which states that the trustees and committee members have been involved in the hospital's operation for many years, building up valuable relationships with stakeholders, will they still be able to contribute after leaving or will they be invited to serve on the new board? Finally, I refer to news reports announcing that the new 12-storey facility will be completed in 2017. Could the Minister of State provide an update on whether or not we are on track for the date of launch? Madam, I also take this opportunity to share a few comments on Singapore's Action Plan to raise our capacity to provide for our ageing population. I understand that KWSH is unique in its approach.”
“I would suggest for the Ministry to take steps to ensure that the process and mechanisms to all these are adequately clear. Thirdly, given the complexities of the third-party funding market, it is critical that parties fully understand the details involved. For example, what are the various products available to them? What are the terms on which they are being offered? What is the impact on their control of the proceedings, and what are the consequences of recovery if there is a successful outcome? In this regard, I would also suggest taking steps to ensure that in practical terms, lawyers and parties are equipped with knowledge of funded actions. Lastly, parties will also need to take appropriate measures to maintain legal privilege and confidentiality. This area of law is always subject to dispute. As such, I would like to clarify if there is sufficient guidance on the effect of third-party funding on legal privilege and confidentiality. Madam, these comments aside, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Madam, I commend this Bill for its recognition of third-party funding and the benefit it will generate for Singapore. Recently, persuasive arguments have been raised in support of third-party funding, especially given the high costs of international commercial arbitration. It has been used in arbitration centres, such as London, Paris and Geneva. I support this Bill on two main points. Firstly, third-party funding would benefit the vulnerable, providing them with access to justice. With this new option, parties to a dispute can now consider their commercial choices: how they might allocate risks, collateralise the claim or apply capital profitably, which may not otherwise have been available. Secondly, recently, Singapore has become a preferred venue for international arbitration. It is, therefore, necessary to be alive to the need to retain the momentum as an arbitration hub, a status that Singapore has worked tirelessly to achieve. Madam, while I support the Bill's main purpose in legitimising third-party funding contracts, I would like to raise a few points. Firstly, it seems that the Ministry is not proposing a blank cheque for third-party funding. There are a number of safeguards which will affect the funders, such as the Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2016, as well as the lawyers engaged by funders. It would be useful to consider if these current regulations sufficiently protect all stakeholders and whether they serve the intended purpose of permitting third-party funding. Secondly, lawyers will be duty-bound to disclose a few matters to the Court, including the existence of third-party funders, funding agreements, the identity of the third-party funders to a Court or arbitral tribunal, as well as to all other parties to the proceedings.”
“This provision seems to envisage that some matters may not be settled through mediation, for example, a mediated settlement on the custody of a child that may not be in the interest of the child. But it is the view of some mediators that all cases can be settled through mediation. Would the Ministry be able to provide more clarity on which cases it envisages to be unsuitable for mediation? Secondly, how will the mediation process be affected by the proposed changes from the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill? I ask this with the knowledge that the Bill covers third-party funding for international arbitration proceedings and related proceedings, which also include mediation. Madam, these questions notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Madam, this Bill seeks to strengthen the overall framework for mediation in Singapore, paving the way for Singapore to position itself as a major international centre. I applaud the work done by the International Commercial Mediation Working Group in putting together these recommendations. Most notably, I welcome the provisions for parties to apply for stay of Court proceedings and defining the scope of confidentiality of these proceedings. I understand that while the mediation process has always been regarded as confidential, the scope of confidentiality was unclear. Furthermore, the Bill also codifies the circumstances under which disclosure may take place. I also welcome the proposal to extend the existing Legal Profession Act exceptions applicable to arbitration, to mediation. Mediation, unlike arbitration, is not commonly understood to involve the practice of law and often does not refer to legal principles at all. Nonetheless, in certain cases, the relevant law may be discussed during the mediation session. The amendment to the Legal Profession Act makes clear that participation by foreign mediators and foreign-qualified counsel in such mediation sessions will not amount to unauthorised practice of Singapore law. Madam, while I believe these recommendations have been well-thought through, allow me to ask a few questions and seek clarifications. Firstly, if this Bill is enacted, it will substantially enhance the enforceability of successfully-mediated cases. However, the Bill mentions that the Court may refuse to record a mediated settlement if the subject matter is incapable of settlement.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I understand there are safety measures in place, but I think some of us may have watched the footage of a grandmother who lost her footing on the escalator when she was carrying her grandchild and then dropped the grandchild over the handrail. Can I just check with the Senior Minister of State what safety measures we have in place to prevent this kind of accidents from happening?”
“Madam, I just want to check with the Minister whether the teachers and the school counsellors have adequate training in mental health awareness and psychological first aid, especially awareness of the most common conditions like depression?”
“Even for those with children, for some, financial contributions from their children are insufficient for their basic survival and I have encountered a few residents in Nee Soon East whose children only provide for them because the law mandates so, through the Parents Maintenance Act. The rising costs of living may also mean that many have no choice but to work well beyond the age of 65, sometimes into their 70s, as you have heard, and even 80s. This would be a very sad reflection of Singapore, if we are a society that cannot even offer rest and repose to our people during their final days. With this in mind, has the Ministry conducted any studies to reveal statistics on how many of our seniors work beyond the age of 65 because they want to, or because they have to and the reasons they have to work beyond 65? There are distinct differences between these two groups and a better understanding of this landscape can help create better policies. Lastly, the main question I have been asked about this Bill is whether we will also be increasing the CPF Retirement Account payout eligibility age, which is currently at age 65 and we might be increasing it to 67. Can the Minister comment on this, please? Sir, the above comments notwithstanding, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill represents significant changes to our re-employment landscape. Reiterating Minister of State for Manpower Mr Sam Tan during the Committee of Supply debates last year, this is a necessary move which shows that Singapore is not just accepting, but embracing our older workforce. Raising the re-employment age from the cap of 65 to 67 brings benefits both to our economy and to our workforce. The retention of manpower will inject vitality into our tight labour market. At the same time, we are helping older Singaporeans to remain employable. My personal interactions with residents in Nee Soon, which has a sizeable population of seniors, tell me that many still want to work because of their desire to be financially independent, and many are already working well beyond the age of 65. By raising the re-employment age, we will shine a light on the value that older workers can bring to our workplace, fostering a mindset shift that ageing is not a burden, but an opportunity. Sir, I also applaud the Government's move to support companies to re-employ older workers. This Bill provides further flexibility for companies, while offering greater options for older workers. However, as we recognise this group of seniors who work only because they want to, we must not forget the population of seniors who work because they have to. For many of the seniors, the reality is that they do not have enough savings to retire. I have met many who continue to work despite physical illness and severe fatigue.”
“Secondly, excessive short selling distorts the fundamental function of a financial market, which is the signalling effect of price. By requiring market participants to declare their short-selling positions, as prescribed in clause 74, it will go a long way to ensure responsible trading. Most importantly, it would deter excessive short selling by syndicates at the expense of retail participants. Thirdly, I am heartened to read about the stiffer penalties for people who flout disclosure requirements. However, will the Ministry consider imposing a two-year trading ban instead of just fines, for those who fail to meet disclosure requirements, or those who present information which gravely affects the movement of prices, thereby distorting efficient trading activities? What is at stake here is the credibility of our financial markets, something which should not be taken for granted. Madam, the relevant bodies should continue to ensure that Singapore's capital markets keep pace with key developments and standards in the international market. But in this pursuit, we should also ensure that retail investors understand the complicated risks involved in the various classes of investment products and the penalties of misconduct. That said, Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Madam, I applaud the amendments proposed in this Bill as it contributes to a higher level of transparency and enhanced protection for retail investors. That said, I would like to seek a few clarifications. Firstly, with the rapid ascent of technology, the financial industry has witnessed a transformation in the development and delivery of financial products. Today, a retail investor can access and trade various financial products, such as stocks, bonds, futures and options, through voice or electronic trading. However, this ease of access and the wide range of financial products could bring about unintended consequences, especially for retail investors. Recently, there has been a sharp rise in scams involving online trading in binary options, with more than 30 reports of such scams lodged to date, as of 14 December, and investors losing more than S$1 million to unregulated binary options trading platforms. The complexities of such derivative products may not be fully understood by a retail investor who lacks access to professional advisory services. While an investor with the privilege of a private banker's advisory may be well-hedged against such risks, I remain concerned for retail investors. We must always strengthen our regulatory framework to ensure the average retail investor is protected, as they remain exposed to an increasing range of investible products, in particular, financial derivatives. Asymmetrical information generally contributes to false triggers and leads to costly investment decisions. As such, educating retail investors should and must always remain a key focus of financial market regulation. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to do this?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for that reply. There are two clarifications. One, Indonesia recently sent government-to-government humanitarian aid to the Rohingyas in the Rakhine state consisting of 10 freight containers with instant noodles, baby food, wheat, cereals and sarongs. Does the Singapore Government have plans to do a similar thing? Second, I wanted to also share that I have visited the refugee camps twice. What I saw and the stories I heard were heart-breaking. I know that there are various reasons for this crisis and there is no easy solution, as the Minister has mentioned. But I hope we remember that there are children involved in this, children who are now fatherless, motherless, families who are torn apart. I agree that we cannot accept the refugees here in Singapore, but I hope that the Singapore Government can do more. So, the second clarification was whether we will provide the matching for the funds that have been raised so far for this issue?”
“In our pursuit of flexible, commercially-focused policies, we must continue to raise the profile of the human element in businesses – particularly for industries with a global nature, such as shipping. We must continue to recognise that the fundamental protection of a human being cannot be subservient to business objectives. With that, Madam, I stand in strong support of the Bill. 4.11 pm”
“The implementation of these conventions will be difficult, especially after these new amendments broaden the responsibilities of shipowners. But Singapore is one of the few developed countries among the port states and we should be a shining example, being one of the first to implement the new rules. Compared to other port states, we have adequate resources and a strong governance system to ensure the human rights of seafarers are codified and enforced. This Bill enables us to be that shining example. I support all changes introduced by this Bill, in particular, affording better protection for abandoned seafarers and requiring shipowners to provide financial security for the compensation of seafarers and their families in cases of a seafarer's death or long-term disability. In the spirit of these commendable amendments, I have the following questions. One, will the Employment Act or the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act also be extended to seafarers for non-injury employment issues which could be in line with MLC's principles on clear employment conditions? Page: 75 Two, will the Ministry be taking additional steps to ensure enforcement of these additional protections, given that seafarers have few opportunities whilst on land to access NGO and MOM aid channels? I want to say that I am heartened by Singapore's enthusiasm towards responsible business practices. Although in the short term, shipowners will have to absorb higher costs for compliance, in the long term, it will ensure business continuity for Singapore's ports. As we face increased competition from growing ports in China, our strict compliance with international law will stand out as a competitive advantage.”
“Mdm Speaker, Singapore was the first few countries to ratify the ILO's Maritime Labour Convention in 2011, signalling our firm commitment to protect seafarers against abuse and exploitation – one of the biggest lapses and criticisms faced by the shipping industry today. Singapore is a global maritime hub, ranked among the world's top 10 largest ship registries with more than 4,500 vessels on our register. Because of our global position, we must take the lead to ensure that we are a hub which is not just efficient, professional and reliable, but one which is also responsible. In this regard, I stand in full support of this Bill to codify into law the amendments to the Convention. In 2015, I was appalled to read about the alleged slavery and trafficking in the Thai fishing industry. I could not believe the human rights atrocities reported, which I thought was inconceivable in the 21st century. While this Bill deals with merchant and not fishing fleets, reports have shown that similar problems do affect seafarers on board merchant ships. We have travelled far since 2006 when MLC was first introduced and ratified by Singapore in 2011, but implementation and enforcement in all 77 countries took time. In the meantime, reports continued to surface on abuses ranging from inhumane working conditions to the systematic cheating of seafarers' wages. And one case linked the death of a Filipino seafarer to a recruitment agency in Singapore, though MOM later clarified that the illegal activities occurred outside our borders. Madam, the high seas are wrought with little oversight, weak rules and abuse of workers. Seafarers are fully dependent on the ratification of international conventions to protect their fundamental rights.”
“Thankfully, for parents these days, there is something called "Google"! Madam, I hope Members in this House enjoy the stories I share about my daughter and about my parenthood journey because there is going to be more stories, as my daughter now graduates to become a big sister. I am happy to announce we are expecting our second child [Applause]. And that was a promise I made. But there was a one-for-one offer and so I am happy to announce we are also expecting our third child – we are having twins! Just saying the word "twins" makes me feel tired already but we are extremely excited about welcoming our two little girls. I look forward to welcoming them into this world and to spending time with them. But I have to say that after these two little girls, this factory is closed. On a more serious note, I am grateful for the amendments in this Bill, especially as a father, as it gives us more time to spend with our children. I am grateful that this sends a strong signal about the importance of spending time with your children, and I am hopeful that, in the future, when asked about the time spent with your children, everyone will reply, "I am glad I did". Madam, let me end with a beautiful quote from Jen Hatmaker and it reads, "You will never have this day with your children again. Tomorrow they will be a little bigger than they are today. Today is a gift. Breathe and notice. Smell and touch them. Study their faces, their little feet and pay attention. Relish in the charms of the present. Enjoy today. It will be over before you know it". Madam, I wholeheartedly support this Bill. 3.31 pm”
“We can't buy time and we can't turn back time. We can't get back the hours, the minutes and the seconds lost. But we can every day treasure and value the time we have with our children and our loved ones." I did not mention this earlier but when I wrote that speech and, in particular, those few paragraphs, I was thinking about my late father who passed away last year and whom I miss dearly. He worked hard but he did not work hard for himself or purely for money. He never wore branded clothes or liked expensive things. But he worked hard for his family, his company and his staff members. He never really had time for family and he passed on before he retired, before he was about to have more time for family, especially his grandchildren. There is a quote, which reads, "Spend time with those you love. One of these days you will either reply, "I'm glad I did," or "I wish I had"." For my father, I am sure his reply was: "I wish I had" and, with him, I wish I had, too, but I know that I cannot turn back time and I will have to live with that regret. But for my children, I will make sure my reply is "I'm glad I did" and I hope everyone will ask yourselves this question as you embark on your parenthood journey and even those already on Page: 64 this journey. I mentioned in my previous speeches that this journey has changed me and it continues to change me. My daughter remains the most stubborn person in my family, she continues to say "no" all the time, even though it is actually more "nos" now – to be exact, it is five "nos" at a go: "no, no, no, no, no". Probably more cute when she says it. But she has also learnt new words. Her favourite words are now: "Daddy, what is this?" or "Daddy, what is that?" I swear she even says this in her sleep. Every day is like an exam now!”
“This is reflective of a Government policy which keeps up with the times as adoption becomes more common. While I applaud these changes, I would like to ask the Minister why adoptive parents are not given the same benefits as birth parents. Why does adoption leave only apply to children under 12 months old? Why do adoptive mothers who qualify for leave still get only 12 weeks of maternity leave compared to the full 18 weeks? I understand that adoptive mothers do not require extra time to recuperate after childbirth, but it is still important to note that adoptive mothers – like birth mothers – require time to bond with their babies. Could we further consider the age of the child to determine the length of parental leave accorded to adoptive parents, and consider giving adoptive mothers the full 18 weeks of maternity leave if they have adopted a new-born or a baby under a certain age? Thirdly, I have met many unwed parents. I hear about the struggles they face, the risks they are exposed to. By introducing these changes, we are levelling the playing field for children born to unwed parents and reducing the disadvantages they face from birth. However, can the Minister share what are the factors delaying the complete levelling of this playing field? Lastly, Madam, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Child Development Co-Savings Bill in May this year and I spoke about my wish to have the power to turn back time. In that speech, I said, "As much as I try to live a life without regret, there will always be regrets, always a wish that we could have done things better, always a wish that we could have spent more time with our loved ones. Time spent with our children is precious and should be cherished, the memories created will last forever and are priceless.”
“Madam, I stand in support of this Bill, which is essentially about the most finite part of our relationship with our children. It is about the time we have with them, it is about the time we spend with them. I fully and wholeheartedly applaud MSF for the amendments they are proposing in this Bill and for levelling the playing field for fathers, for adoptive parents and for single unwed parents. These amendments move us one huge step forward towards becoming a more inclusive society. Parenthood has been one of the greatest joys in my life and it remains close to my heart to see that every parent in Singapore is able to watch their child speak their first words, walk their first steps and hold their hand every step of the way. Ample research has shown that the bonds forged between parent and child in the earlier stage of his or her development is a one-time opportunity. Once the window closes, it closes forever. Thus, this remains one of my highest priorities: contributing my thoughts and suggestions about parenthood. With regard to this Bill, firstly, I firmly support the additional week of mandated Government-Paid Paternity Leave and the increment of Shared Parental Leave eligible to fathers. These changes send a strong signal of the Government's resolve to put family first. The Minister had previously stated that in 2013, about 28% of fathers took the Government-Paid Paternity Leave; in 2014, it was about 36%. Can the Minister share what the percentages are for 2015 and, to date, for 2016, and most importantly, what steps the Ministry will be taking to Page: 63 increase the percentage of fathers taking the paternity leave? Secondly, I applaud the Ministry for a radical shift in the support given to adoptive parents.”
“Iris scans have surely proven its effectiveness and I am in full support of it. But in order for us to reap its full benefits, I hope we have strict safeguards in place, particularly for data protection. Madam, these points notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill. 2.09 pm”
“There will always be teething issues with the introduction of any new technology, especially one as personal as this, and we should have ready answers. In this light, can the Minister share plans on how it will ensure that the new data collected will be secure? How does the Ministry plan to satisfy the public about this? Secondly, on user acceptance. Some people might be skeptical – even fearful – of new technology like this, which could be seen as a page out of a science fiction novel. For the older generation, there could be misconceptions ‒ will it hurt my eyes, does it involve lasers? For the younger generation, there could be discomfort from what they see as additional Government "surveillance". Certainly, the technology has been tried and tested, but how does the Ministry plan to educate the public to debunk these myths? Thirdly, I would like to find out more about the technology deployed at the immigration checkpoints. I have read that iris scanners are able to detect stress through indicators, such as movement of the eyeballs. Once stress is detected, the system will immediately alert authorities. If this is truly available, it would be a real step-up for security at our checkpoints. Can the Minister share if the iris imaging technology we will acquire can provide this extra layer of security? My final point is to ask which Ministry and Government services will have access to, and use of the data. Apart from immigration and perhaps, the Police, are there plans for schools, hospitals and other relevant services to also use the data for identification – perhaps not immediately, but in the Page: 43 longer term? Madam, in this era where criminal methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated, the Government needs to invest in superior technology.”
“Madam, one of the key amendments of this Bill is the introduction of iris imaging, and my speech will focus on that point. We have sufficient proof that iris imaging is far more accurate than all other biometric identifiers available today. Compared to fingerprints, which can wear off, iris scans have a much lower chance of false matches. It has already been tried, tested and deployed in other parts of the world – from airports, to banks and smartphones. This year, the UN started to use it to identify refugees. In the private sector, industry watchers also consider it the next big thing. Thus, if new technology is available for a safer Singapore, then we must seize it – and I am encouraged that this Bill does reflect the Government's vigilance and eagerness to seize opportunities to strengthen security. That said, in order for us to reap the full benefits of this new technology, I would like to raise a few questions. Firstly, on the safety of the data collected, as has been previously raised by my fellow colleague, there have been many discussions about the collection of biometric data, since identity theft and security breaches are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Iris scans are especially sensitive because they are so powerful. The most advanced scanners can identify many people in a split second, even from a long-range. The data is almost fool-proof and is permanent. If this data falls into the hands of people with mal-intentions, the consequences can be dangerous. The public could have questions on how secure the database will be, whether third parties, apart from the Government, will have access to the data and so on.”
“Would the entire pipe network be considered as a single pipe corridor, meaning there is only one owner, or would it be considered as multiple pipe corridors, meaning that there are a few owners held accountable? This is an important point to raise because the integrity of the entire pipe network is dependent on the integrity of the weakest pipe, and maintenance of the entire network needs to be consistent. I raise this question simply to seek clarity on the definition in the Bill. I appreciate it is difficult to explain this question in words and, as such, I have provided the Senior Minister of State with a drawing illustrating this point. I also needed that drawing to understand what was written here. Thirdly, can the Minister share what are the commercial implications of this change? Madam, these questions notwithstanding, safety is always of utmost importance, and I stand in support of this Bill.”
“Madam, I support the Bill's intention to appoint one risk owner to ensure the integrity of the entire pipeline corridor, from the point of supply to the point of discharge. As a regional hub for oil and gas, Singapore is covered with submarine and land lines connecting areas, such as Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island, to the mainland. Pipelines carrying flammable materials are exposed to high risks, including rupture and oil spillage. Just last month, governors in a few American states declared a state of emergency after a pipeline carrying petroleum ruptured in central Alabama, spilling more than 300,000 gallons of fuel in an ecologically-sensitive area and causing fuel shortages. This is a reminder that we cannot be complacent and should enact legislative changes before accidents occur. This Bill will ensure that we have single-piece accountability for the integrity of our pipelines. This will mean more efficient decision-making during emergency responses. The frequent usage of pipelines leads to the reduction of wall thickness, creating higher chances of wall rupture. Thus, in the long-term, the integrity of pipelines would also be more secure if one party is liable to conduct inspections, maintenance, train operations, staff and other such responsibilities. Madam, I would like to ask a few questions on this Bill. Firstly, how easy or difficult is it to convert from the current arrangement to the desired single-party arrangement? How would the Ministry choose which party to license? Have we also sought Page: 32 feedback from the companies about these proposed changes? Secondly, in an arrangement where there are multiple pipes within a pipe network, how would the Ministry define a "pipe corridor"?”
“Madam, apart from the clarifications requested and the suggestion for improvements, I stand in support of the Bill. 1.06 pm”
“I understand that the installation of mobile equipment is primarily for the economic benefit of mobile operators. With this in mind, would the Ministry consider ensuring that operators ensure a guaranteed minimum standard of broadband service to all customers? This would go beyond service levels on coverage, but include a requirement on speed. For example, all 4G customers within a certain area of an installed mobile broadband equipment should be guaranteed a certain Internet speed. If speeds fall below a certain level, the operator must respond within a certain time to remedy any issues. Such a regulated guarantee would also provide more comfort to owners that the equipment installed on their roofs will benefit them as well. Third, a minor point on an inconvenience faced by consumers. Consumers should have a choice on which networking equipment they can use, now that amendments have been proposed for Internet and mobile operators to have a choice on where best to install their equipment. Page: 24 Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) often require customers to use a default modem and router, which is rented or bought from the ISP. This means that if the customer has an existing router or modem, they will not be allowed to use it. For example, unless you are subscribing to the most expensive plan, SingTel currently requires that you use their own modem. I had a personal experience with this inconvenience. Recently, I bought a new wireless router. However, when my ISP's support came, I was told that I would not be able to use it. So, I ended up buying a device which I was not allowed to use in my own home. Speaking up on behalf of consumers, would the Ministry consider taking steps to change this?”
“Madam, I rise in support of this Bill. These amendments include operational improvements and also provide clarity on how telecommunications operators are regulated. The amendments also lay an important foundation for the introduction of next generation mobile technology, which includes the building up of our Smart Nation sensor network. Madam, allow me to share three suggestions for the Ministry to look into. Firstly, on the objections by owners or occupiers of the land or building to a telecommunications licensee accessing their property, can the Minister share how many of such written objections have been lodged over the past three years? In addition, on how many occasions over the past three years have the authority authorised the works to be carried out, despite the objections and following the inquiry? The amendments to section 14 add an additional step where the "Authority must notify the public telecommunications licensee concerned to resolve the dispute with the objector due to the objection". Also, "on receipt of the Authority's notice, the public telecommunications licensee must take genuine steps to resolve the dispute with the objector due to the objection". Can the Minister clarify how long the telecommunications licensee is given to try to resolve the dispute? And is there a timeframe provided for the Authority to hold an inquiry from the time a written objection is lodged? I expect that most of the time, there should not be strong reasons for objection, but, in some cases, owners could have legitimate reservations and this should be promptly looked into. Secondly, we should ensure that the additional efforts to deploy mobile equipment provided by this Bill do lead to better connection.”
“Secondly, in sections 8A and 63, the Bill has sought to introduce mandatory electronic filing for corporate income tax returns in stages for all companies eventually, by 2020. I welcome this change as this is in line with the Government's direction for more effective delivery of public service. This is also in line with the Government's Smart Nation vision to harness technology to enhance productivity. While I commend our move to lead a life more empowered by technology, this may be difficult for some of the staff members, particularly those in the older generation, who may be unfamiliar with such computer systems. This may impede their productivity, or even cause them to be replaced by businesses if they are unable to rise to the task. As such, I would suggest that the phasing out be taken at a slower pace, especially for traditional businesses, which should have the option of opting-out of mandatory e-filing with good reasons. This is also as we have seen an increase in the number of retrenchments. IRAS can consider these applications on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the age and capabilities of administrative staff members of the company. These comments notwithstanding, Madam, this Bill can only serve the interests of Singapore's businesses and economy, and I stand in support of it. 12.39 pm”
“Madam, I stand in support of this Bill. I welcome these progressive and timely amendments to the Income Tax Act, which support domestic businesses and spur economic growth, especially in view of the forecasted sluggish growth in 2017. In its twice-yearly Macroeconomic Review released on 25 October 2016, MAS stated that global growth is expected to come in at 3.7% this year and edge up slightly to 3.8% next year, as business investments in major economies stay sluggish due to the elevated economic uncertainty. The central bank also said that business sentiment remains negative, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises. As a nation, we have to face the upcoming tough challenges together in the year ahead. However, it is encouraging that Government policy continues to be relevant to meet the needs of the finance sector and other businesses. Page: 16 Here, let me highlight two aspects of this Bill. As the Senior Minister of State had mentioned, Corporate Income Tax Rebate is given to all companies to help them with rising business costs and is applicable for Years of Assessment 2013 to 2017. For Years of Assessment 2013 to 2015, companies received 30% income tax rebate, capped at $30,000. For Years of Assessment 2016 to 2017, companies were to receive 30%, capped at $20,000. The cap reduced the maximum rebate by $10,000 from what it was previously. The current Bill seeks to increase the rebate rate for Years of Assessment 2016 to 2017 from 30% to 50%, but retains the cap at $20,000. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify the rationale behind reducing the cap by $10,000? And in view of the sluggish economy ahead, will the Senior Minister of State also consider not just increasing the rebate rate but also increasing the cap?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Can I just ask her if there is any criteria for this trial that is going to be carried out at NUH for people that want to participate in this trial?”
“While Singapore progresses towards the regulation of credit bureaus, I believe that we also need more competition and incentives for innovation to encourage credit bureaus to deliver their service better. Madam, in some ways, credit bureaus deliver a public good, and credit ratings have enormous effects on all players in the economy. Thus, I applaud the Bill for recognising that the Government must do all it can to ensure that the good is delivered with public interest as a priority. Madam, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“In this light, I strongly agree with the move for MAS to enact formal supervision over credit bureaus, closely monitoring their activities and how they safeguard sensitive data belonging to consumers. Madam, while I see the immediate benefits of this Bill, I hope to ask a few questions on whether or not it considers Singapore's credit rating industry in the long term. Currently, as the Minister mentioned, there are only two credit bureaus, the Credit Bureau Singapore (CBS) and the DP Credit Bureau (DPCB), in Singapore, and it is only these two which will be licensed under the new regulations. Has MAS considered whether new entrants into this industry will benefit Singapore's economy and, if so, can the Minister share their plans to register new credit bureaus? In addition, out of these two credit bureaus, it seems that only CBS currently has access to comprehensive data from lenders, as banks are only required to supply data to CBS and not DPCB. Can the Minister confirm this? As we seem to have a virtual monopoly and unfair advantage in the industry, has MAS been monitoring what effect this has? Without a level-playing field for industry players, like every industry, there will be a lack of innovation. Especially in our rapidly evolving market, where new payment solutions are springing up, credit bureaus also need to be on their feet, seeking out new sources of data, adjusting their analytical tools and algorithms to ensure they provide a holistic view of a person's creditworthiness. It would seem that a lack of competition will lead to a lack of incentives to innovate, resulting in an environment where credit bureaus are allowed to be complacent.”
“Madam, this Bill is timely, both considering the shift in the global context and in our domestic landscape. Globally, most large international markets have moved towards the regulation of credit bureaus. After the scare of the 2008 Financial Crisis, jurisdictions quickly shifted towards stricter controls to close the loopholes allowing for unethical practices by credit bureaus. We quickly learnt that these malpractices were a major factor contributing to the crisis, and that governments need to act fast to prevent future crises of this scale. It is timely for Singapore to keep in line with international standards and practices, alongside countries like the US, Japan and Hong Kong, and for us to develop a compatible regulatory regime, especially as international financial markets become increasingly globalised. Domestically, we have also moved towards an era of stronger privacy laws. The PDPA was a game changer for Singapore, and I am eager that we continue this trend to strengthen consumer rights. The rapidly evolving nature of this market also means that more and more data is being collected, much of it highly sensitive and private information, and much of it unbeknownst to consumers. In a recent report, it was worrying that nine out of 10 credit applicants have never seen their own credit reports, even as they apply for new loans or new credit cards. They were not even aware that free credit reports were available to them. To be honest, I did not know as well. As more young borrowers want to gain access to credit, they should be empowered to keep track of what their credit information is saying about their financial health. I am encouraged that section 16 of this Bill addresses this head-on.”
“Madam, let me end by saying I am thankful that the Deputy Prime Minister spent 90 minutes explaining all the details in this Bill comprehensively. Contrary to the earlier comments by Mr Low, I do believe that details are important. We cannot debate, decide or delay a decision if no details or incomplete details are provided. I am sure if incomplete details were provided in this Bill, Opposition Members will say the same things I am saying now. I am certain that we all welcome alternative ideas, but I am also certain we should particularly welcome alternative ideas that have been thoroughly thought through and where complete details are provided. After all, as in the quote by John Wooden, "It's the little details that are vital. Little things make big things happen". Madam, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“In fact, I hope we will have a woman candidate in the upcoming Presidential Election, making such a future review redundant. Lastly, like meritocracy, multiracialism is a cherished value in our country. The representation of the different communities through this amendment is a right step in that direction. Having reserved elections allows us to do this, though it may appear to be affirmative action or betray a belief that minority candidates are not capable of being elected on their own merits or that our electorate still largely votes along racial lines. The fact that Mr Murali Pillai won a resounding victory in the recent Bukit Batok by-election perhaps serves as a useful test case, which shows that race may not be such an important factor. While a reserved election can expediently solve this problem, it is worth asking why we have not had an eligible Malay or Eurasian candidate thus far, to better understand the issue. There is certainly much more we can do as a Government to improve the representation of various races in politics, their socioeconomic conditions and their leadership positions of different private and public sectors. We can do more by heading more upstream and tackle remnants of discrimination that still exists in our society. Many of us have talked about the IPS survey and I will quote some findings as well. The recent survey indicates that 45% of respondents have heard racist comments in their workplace; 27% think it is okay not to hire someone because of his or her race; and only 35% and 41% of Chinese Singaporeans said they would accept a Malay or Indian Singaporean respectively to manage their businesses.”
“Madam, the office of the President is a highly significant one in our country. It has undergone significant changes. The proposals made under this Bill continue to keep it relevant, influential and important. I would like to raise a few questions and comments as we further the debate. Firstly, we are proposing that the President should now consult the CPA on all fiscal matters and key public sector appointments. I appreciate that we are proposing more safeguards, which is important, and this really is a safeguard on top of a safeguard for all fiscal matters and key public sector appointments. It will be very safe, and I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has clarified the importance of this. But I am still concerned that this may dilute the significance and power of the President. Secondly, as Singaporeans, we value meritocracy and we certainly want the best man or woman on the job. Enhancing the eligibility criteria for Presidential candidates is thus in line with this principle. It is sensible and no one should dispute its importance. Based on the proposed amendments and the Prime Minister's earlier announcement, Madam, I would like to ask how many Malay Singaporeans would be eligible to run for President. Do we have a rough estimate based on the amended eligibility criteria? Thirdly, how about the representation of women? This is equally important, given how we have not had a single woman President. This is an area we can do better in, as even in the current Cabinet, there is only one woman full Minister. As such, I believe that while we look at the race, at our Presidential candidates, we should also look at gender and I hope that future reviews will include this.”
“Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I thank her also for considering imposing a plastic bag charge. But is there a timeframe before a decision is going to be made? Secondly, the Senior Minister of State had given some of the survey results from ZeroWasteSG. But can the Ministry also consider the other part of the survey which showed that 65% of shoppers would reduce the number of plastic bags they take from supermarkets, or 58% would actually bring their own reusable bag if there is a 10-cent charge that is imposed by the supermarkets? What we are calling for here is not a ban on plastic bags, which we know we need to use to bag our rubbish. But I think this is a pretty good middle ground. It is win-win because it is asking people to reduce the wastage, and the survey results so far show that people would reduce the wastage if there is just a 10-cent charge.”
“Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Can I check whether this policy is cast in stone or whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will consider reviewing it with the view of decriminalising attempted suicide?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have asked whether we can consider allowing Work Permit holders to do part-time work but I understand this might already be happening on the ground, but under the radar. The reality is that workers want to work; companies need the workers. These are jobs that they cannot find Singaporeans to work in, especially at that particular shift. So, rather than ban, can we consider regulating, so that we can protect the workers? As the Minister of State mentioned, if they are doing the part-time work under the radar, they might be exploited. So, if we are worried about opening the floodgates, then could I ask the Minister of State if they can consider opening up on a smaller scale, at perhaps a few industries or just one industry to start with, and study whether it works before deciding to ban or open it?”
“Even if we recognise that lump-sum withdrawals require astute management, those who request such a withdrawal will still face the challenge of matching the returns offered by CPF. This is not easy. Outperforming CPF returns is certainly not something individuals should lightly risk with their retirement funds. Finally, I have two questions. First, I would like to clarify if the legislation allows for lump-sum withdrawals which have been incorrectly dispensed to be recovered. This is a potential new complication, especially since we are talking about limited withdrawals under certain eligibility conditions. Second, I would like to ask the Minister what the long-term vision of CPF Board is on managing individual and collective responsibility for retirement needs is. By allowing partial withdrawal of a lump sum, does today's Bill imply that the Government is aiming to promote a balance between the two? 5.01 pm”
“Page: 58 While this Bill seeks to provide for account holders to make lump-sum withdrawals under strict conditions, I feel that it should be made clearer that it is not possible for CPF savings to be regarded as a personal bank account. Too much individual flexibility in handling CPF accounts will compromise its objective of providing blanket retirement adequacy. We also recognise that CPF can only continue to excel in its core function if it is not loaded with multiple and, sometimes, possibly contradictory objectives. The well-known trade-off between risks and returns is based on large sample averages. It should not be mistaken to imply that all individuals who take on higher risks will enjoy higher returns. In some cases, the risks will be converted into actual losses and, when these cases hit those who are financially weak, their retirement savings will suffer. Lump-sum withdrawals are no doubt a popular feature, but is it a logical one and what is allowing lump-sum withdrawals meant to achieve? Will a lump-sum withdrawal be regarded as a windfall? While such withdrawals will satisfy the individual, it is not necessarily true for the collective. Allowing CPF accounts to be treated as flexibly as personal bank accounts on one extreme will deplete the pool and reduce its capacity to achieve a good spread of risks. It will also directly compromise retirement adequacy and any move in that direction will, unfortunately and ultimately, weaken CPF as an institution in exchange for mere popularity. Moving forward, I believe it would be more important to focus on de-popularising the notion that lump-sum withdrawals can be treated as a windfall, strengthening retirement adequacy, and enhance but also more narrowly target the support for those retirees who are most in need.”
“This is an area where I believe more can be done to distinguish between the individual and the collective when it comes to taking responsibility for retirement adequacy. The natural inclination of individual account holders is to want greater flexibility in withdrawal. The challenge, however, is how we deal with the infrequent but inevitable lapses of the very small minority. Unfortunately, when such lapses occur, for instance, in the form of excessive early withdrawals, it could defeat the effectiveness of CPF for retirement savings. The practice of requiring employers to contribute to the retirement security of their employees is an accepted norm globally, but so is the challenge of ensuring that the monies given over to the control of the beneficiaries are responsibly set aside by the receiving employee. According to the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, the ranking of Singapore's CPF has weakened in recent years because of a decline in the rating for adequacy. Whose responsibility is it to ensure retirement adequacy? The individual or the Government? Would allowing lump-sum withdrawals, however limited, from retirement accounts impact on such adequacy? In recent years, the extra interest on the initial part of an account holder's combined balances, currently set at $60,000, as well as on the initial balances of those aged 55 and above, has significantly promoted better adequacy. But the financially weak remain vulnerable. The challenge that whoever is responsible for retirement adequacy faces is that the concept itself is not as clearly defined any more, simply because retirement itself seems to be a shifting concept, with different types of workers looking at it differently.”
“Madam, I believe including them will have the effect of knitting the family fabric even closer, bringing extended family members into circles of trust. Madam, these comments notwithstanding, I believe that the proposed changes will strengthen the trust Singaporeans have in the CPF system. In this period of economic difficulties, Page: 57 Singaporeans will appreciate a more secure safety net for them and their families. Thus, I stand in support of this Bill. 4.55 pm Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. I would also like to point out some areas of concern where I feel we should proceed much more cautiously into the future. Earlier this year, when the House debated the CPF (Amendment) Bill, there had already been significant discussion of the benefits of the changes then, especially enhanced insurance coverage under the Home Protection Scheme and the greater flexibility afforded by the reduction in requirement for account holders to keep the Full Retirement Sum and, instead, they only need to keep to the lower Basic Retirement Sum. Although the issue of retirement adequacy had been broached at the time, today's Bill brings the issue into sharper focus because it proposes a scheme for lump-sum withdrawals. I certainly have no objections to being allowed to make lump-sum withdrawals as an individual. But I would like to ask what this will mean, first, for retirement adequacy and, more importantly, for individuals who are looking to such withdrawals possibly as a chance to enjoy a windfall. General interest surrounding lump-sum withdrawals has been linked to the issue of individual control over their accounts.”
“Lastly, on the proposed new section 18D, I commend the greater flexibility granted to family members, allowing them to transfer funds from their Ordinary and/or Special Accounts to the MediSave Accounts of their family members. In this period of rising medical costs for our senior citizens, there will be occasions when the balance in their MediSave Accounts runs low and a top up is required. The flexibility and freedom granted by this amendment will lighten the anxiety of members in need. However, can the Minister clarify what exactly are the "terms and conditions as the Board may impose", as specified in section 18D? In addition, this amendment applies to "any person who is related to the member in a manner specified by the Board". "Related Person" is defined in the Act as: (a) his spouse; (b) a child of the member, including an adopted child or a step-child; (c) a father or mother of the member; (d) a brother or sister of the member; (e) a grandchild of the member; (f) a grandparent of the member; or (g) any other person who, in the opinion of the Board, should be regarded as a related person for the purposes of this section. When interacting with residents, I have encountered many cases of senior citizens being dependent on their sons- or daughters-in-law for their day-to-day needs and they are an integral part of the family. For some, they could even represent one of the closest members within the family. Can the Minister clarify if sons- or daughters-in-law can be classified as a related person under "(g) any other person who in the opinion of the Board should be regarded as a related person for the purposes of this section"?”
“Madam, the CPF system has been lauded around the world as an effective method for the Government to help manage the financial needs of citizens throughout their lifetime. The amendments to the CPF in this Bill will further strengthen the system and have far-reaching implications. I stand in support of this Bill for the following reasons. Firstly, the greater discretion accorded to CPF Board will lead to greater efficiency. The board will now be allowed to start payouts for members on the Retirement Sum Scheme, without requiring members to make an application. I understand that we are doing this, as the Minister has mentioned, because some members on the Retirement Sum Scheme may not have made these applications despite receiving repeated reminder letters from CPF Board around two months before their PEA. Can I ask if the Board has found out the reasons as to why members did not make these applications? Was there an increasing number of members who did not make these applications over the past few years? While this amendment will solve this issue on the surface, I wonder if there are other underlying reasons which we need to look into and address as well. Page: 56 Secondly, I support the implementation of BHS and the amendments to remove the requirement to top up the MediSave Account. Withdrawal of CPF is often a much-awaited event for many retiring Singaporeans who have laboured hard throughout their lives. But the current policy causes a strain on members when they are required to top up their MediSave Accounts before withdrawing from their Ordinary or Special Accounts. This amendment is a step forward to help increase their retirement funds.”
“We didn't have enough cash, and their credit card machine was not working. The owner said, 'Never mind, pay me another time!' We went back the next night, and we still did not have enough local currency, and the credit card machine was still not working and the owner said, 'Never mind, just eat first and pay me another time!' We were complete strangers, and he did not ask us for any ID, nothing." In the concluding paragraph of that Facebook post, I wrote, "I felt what it was like to live amongst people so genuine, so trusting that I had to pinch myself so many times to make sure I wasn't dreaming." In April this year, Minister Shanmugam spoke about how a 10-year-old child can take public transport alone in Singapore. There is no doubt we are a safe society and our primary focus should be our physical safety. But I hope we can focus not only on our physical safety but also on our community spirit and continue to build a society where a higher level of trust exists amongst all of us. The trust that holds society together like glue cannot, and should not, be lost in our search for economic progress. And this trust can only be cultivated by protecting the moral fabric of our society. These are my high hopes for Singapore – strong moral values which guide our behaviour, without the constant need for Government carrots and sticks. Madam, let me end with a quote, which reads: "Trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair." It is my utmost wish that we will live in a society where trust remains the norm, where the moral fabric of our nation remains strong and where we would not need to strengthen this piece of legislation again in the near future. Madam, my above comments notwithstanding, I support this Bill.”
“These replies depress me, to be honest. It is a sign that we have become over-reliant on laws. I wish the replies were that we should not litter because it might harm the environment, it might pollute the ecosystem, it might make it unpleasant for others, or we should not litter because someone else has to pick up the litter. I appreciate that I sound idealistic. But where are we heading as a society if everything we do or do not do is because there is a fine or penalty attached to it? It does seem like we are doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Fundamentally, we should have laws, but we should not solely and consistently focus on the laws. Morals and values in an ideal world should not be dictated by laws. And these cannot be taught in the classroom nor written in textbooks. Children learn by watching. So, we, as parents, need to teach by example. We, as parents, need to instil the values in our children. Two quotes sum up what I just said. The first, and I quote, "Children close their ears to advice but open their eyes to example"; and the second, "Children learn from what you are than what you teach". Ultimately, we cannot just depend on legislation or depend on schools to strengthen trust and reduce cheating. A high level of trust is indicative of an integrated, resilient and cohesive society, one which will require less Government intervention and fewer laws. This may sound like a fantastical utopia, and I, a foolish idealist. But I have personally encountered such a society. In July 2012, I was in the Solomon Islands, and I shared my experience in a Facebook post more than four years ago. I wrote: "The people here show a level of trust I seldom see. We had dinner in a restaurant on the first night.”