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 4 of 37.
“Section 17(1) requires a CSP to perform customer due diligence measures in certain circumstances. However, under section 17(3), a CSP may choose not to perform or complete any customer due diligence measure, if the CSP has reason to suspect that the transaction relates to money laundering, proliferation financing or terrorism financing and performing the measures will tip-off the customer or any person. Further, under section 17(4), if a CSP is unable or chooses not to complete any customer due diligence measure, the CSP must decline to provide or terminate ongoing corporate services. If the reason for not performing or completing any customer due diligence measure is because doing so will tip the customer off, the CSP's refusal to provide or termination of corporate services may also risk tipping-off any person. Can the Minister clarify how CSP should proceed in refusing to provide or terminating its services, if it is concerned about the risk of tipping-off any person? My third and final clarification is on regulatory breaches. Under sections 19(2)(d) and 21(2)(d), financial penalties of $25,000 and $10,000 respectively may be imposed for each contravention or non-compliance of regulations. For certain continuing offences, the Bill prescribes additional fines to be imposed for every day during which the offence continues after conviction. Can the Minister clarify whether the provisions on regulatory breaches gives the Registrar the power to treat each day of continuing regulatory breaches as fresh instances of contravention or non-compliance which can be separately penalised? Under sections 18(4)(b)(iii) and 20(4)(b)(iii), the Registrar may determine that there was a contravention or non-compliance of regulation and decide not to take regulatory action.”
“Sir, the CSP Bill and the CLLP (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill will strengthen the regulation of CSPs and increase the transparency of beneficial ownership of corporate entities. I thank ACRA for conducting a public consultation on the proposed changes and for publishing its responses to the feedback received. I have three points of clarifications to raise. My first point is on the duties imposed on CSPs. Section 16 will impose duties on CSPs to ensure that a nominee director is a fit and proper person. Section 16(2) requires a CSP to take all reasonable steps to be satisfied that the person is not disqualified from acting as a director and to consider prescribed factors. Can the Minister elaborate on the extent of reasonable steps that must be taken? Can the Minister also provide examples of the factors which will be prescribed? In the public consultation, respondents asked whether these requirements apply retrospectively to nominee directors' appointments made before the CSP Bill might come into force. MOF and ACRA clarified that this requirement will not apply retrospectively. Notwithstanding that the requirement will not apply retrospectively, in the event that a CSP discovers that an existing nominee director is not considered a fit and proper person based on any prescribed factors, can the Minister clarify what the CSP will be obliged to do in this situation? In the public consultation, MOF and ACRA also clarified that the obligation to ensure that a nominee director is fit and proper is an ongoing one. Can the Minister provide further guidance on the steps that a CSP must take to discharge this ongoing obligation? My second point is on CSPs' duties to perform customer due diligence.”
“These third parties include authorised information service providers, trustees of a bankrupt's estate, liquidators, judicial managers, receivers, financial institutions, moneylenders and estate agents. Once the information is provided to these third parties, the information is then subject to the third party's data protection and management policies. My concern is that the capabilities around protecting data may vary across different third parties. For instance, a moneylender or a real estate agent may not be able to set up data protection as robust as those of a financial institution. This is noteworthy because the information ACRA shares may include personal data. Can the Minister share how ACRA will ensure that information, especially personal data, provided to third parties will be adequately protected and not be subsequently used by these third parties for other purposes, such as marketing or sales? For instance, will ACRA require an undertaking from these third parties on the use and protection of the information provided? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“However, section 30D(1) sets out two exceptions where an individual's residential address may cease to be excluded from public disclosure. This includes where communications sent require a response within a specified period or where service of any document at the individual's contact address is not effective to bring it to the notice of the individual. Can the Minister clarify how publicly disclosing an individual's residential address will assist in obtaining the individual's response or bringing any document to the individual's notice? Second, under section 30D(8), if the Registrar causes an individual's residential address to cease to be excluded from public disclosure, the individual will not be allowed to provide a contact address within three years unless the Registrar is satisfied that there is good cause to allow the individual to do so. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for not allowing the individual to provide a contact address within three years? Can the Minister also share what would be considered good cause to allow an individual to do so? Third, when lawyers commence legal proceedings, they have to effect service on the individual personally and, sometimes, those persons are not at the office. Currently, when they cannot be found in the office, the lawyers will serve them at home based on the residential addresses listed in the ACRA corporate registers. Can the Minister clarify whether lawyers will still be able to obtain the residential addresses for the purposes of service of process? My third and final point is on the provision of information and documents to third parties. Under section 30B(1), ACRA may provide information and documents to certain third parties.”
“Sir, this Bill will streamline the regulation of corporate entities. I thank ACRA for conducting a public consultation on the proposed changes and for publishing its responses to the feedback received. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the use of the BizFile+ digital mailbox to send statutory correspondence and notices. The Bill will empower the Registrar to send documents and information, other than Court summonses, through the digital mailbox. In the public consultation, Ministry of Finance (MOF) and ACRA clarified that customers will be informed, including by email, when they receive new information or documents posted through the digital mailbox. The timing of when documents are received may be important, especially in Court proceedings. Can the Minister clarify how documents will be deemed to have been received? Will it be based on when the document is posted in the digital mailbox, when the customer is informed about the posting, or when the customer accesses the documents in the digital mailbox? MOF and ACRA have also made clear that hard copy documents for Court proceedings will still be sent via registered post. Can Minister share if there are any plans to allow Court documents to be served via the digital mailbox? After all, the Courts have now recognised substituted service of Court documents for civil proceedings via the Singpass app inbox. If so, what factors will the Ministry consider in determining whether it is appropriate to allow service via the digital mailbox? My second point is on the ceasing the exclusion of residential addresses from public disclosure. I have three questions about this. First, section 30C(1) prohibits any individual's residential address from being publicly disclosed.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act for the protection of certain food donors from liability for any death or personal injury resulting from the consumption of food donated by those food donors under certain conditions". [(proc text) Bill read for the First time. (proc text)]”
“This Bill will help reduce food waste and increase availability of food for redistribution to food-insecure communities. It is a Bill by the people, for the people and for our planet. I have waited a long time to say this, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.”
“The Committee comprise of representatives from BreadTalk, DBS bank, Food from the Heart, Foodscape Collective, Mandarin Oriental Singapore, NTUC Fairprice, Restaurant Association of Singapore, the Singapore Youth for Climate Action, the Food Bank, the Fullerton Hotels and Resorts, Ya Kun International and my legislative assistants, grassroot leaders and fellow Members of Parliament, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia. It has been a privilege working with this team of passionate volunteers who donated their time and energy, so that many people and our planet can benefit from this piece of legislation. We spent hours, days, weeks, months and years discussing what should and should not be included in the Bill, what food should be covered and who should be covered. We consulted extensively, conducting public consultations and meeting with restaurants, hotels, social enterprises, primary food producers, the food processing sector, distributors, wholesalers, food logistic, transport and delivery provider companies, supermarkets and merchants, bakeries and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). I am grateful for the Committee's hard work and inspired by their passion in wanting to help others. Mr Speaker, we do have a food waste problem in Singapore. Every year, for the past few years, we generated about 700,000 to 800,000 tonnes of food waste and a lot of this food is still edible. The Good Samaritans Food Donation Bill aims to encourage more food donation by protecting food donors from criminal or civil liability for any death or personal injury resulting from consuming the food donated, provided that certain conditions to ensure food safety and hygiene are met.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill intituled 'An Act for the protection of certain food donors from liability for any death or personal injury resulting from the consumption of food donated by those food donors under certain conditions'." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Ms Poh Li San. (proc text)] Sir, it has been a long, at times painful but absolutely rewarding journey. More than four years ago, I said in this House that, "Food waste is a serious and growing problem. In 2018, 763,000 tonnes of food were wasted in Singapore, a 30% increase compared to 10 years ago. At the same time, some Singaporeans struggle to have three meals a day. Both problems can be alleviated if we introduce a Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. This piece of legislation would help encourage companies and organisations to donate healthy food that would otherwise go to waste. It will help both the environment and our people. Will the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources support a Private Member's Bill for a Good Samaritan Food Donation Act?" Four years later, I am glad and excited that we are now ready to move the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. Honestly, I am really hiding my pure excitement and uncontrollable happiness. The Bill has been made possible by the tremendous work done by the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee over the past four years.”
“Many of the provisions in this Bill and the powers granted to MOT mirror those that are found in the Significant Investments Review Act. This creates five very similar legislative regimes, resulting in unnecessary complexity in applying the individual statutes. Can the Minister clarify why separate rules are created in this Bill under four different Acts, rather than being implemented through the framework created under the Significant Investments Review Act? For example, all the entities to be designated under this Bill could have been designated as critical to national security instead and brought under the purview of the Office of Significant Investments Review instead, with MOT being consulted as a subject matter expert. One such complexity is that under the Significant Investments Review Act, the Minister's decisions can be appealed to a Reviewing Tribunal rather than judicial review under the Courts. However, decisions under this Bill would be appealed through the judicial review process. While I trust both forums to be capable of reaching fair decisions, the difference in forum might lead to inconsistency in process or outcomes, which may create uncertainty for business owners. How will the Government ensure that we have a consistent approach between critical transport services and significant investments? Notwithstanding my clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, our transport sector is a key pillar to Singapore's survival. Not only are we a major aviation and maritime hub, our people depend on our world-class public transport network to get around and go to work to power our economy. I thus support this Bill, which grants the Government additional powers to ensure that critical transport firms are led by the right people and operated in a way that will maintain the stability of our transport system. I have two points of clarifications to raise. First, can the Minister clarify how MOT expects this Bill to impact the transport sector in Singapore? How many entities do we expect to be designated as essential transport services under this Bill? Has the Ministry consulted with these entities and, if so, can their concerns be shared with this House? Next, is MOT concerned that increased regulation and control may affect the growth of our transport sector by slowing down business transactions or increasing barriers for new enterprises? For example, startups which intend to grow to become key players in our aviation and maritime ecosystem may face challenges in bringing in new members if there is a risk of greater regulatory controls in the future. Or are we expecting that these new safeguards will allow an even more open approach to the transport sector, allowing more private ownership and foreign investment, even for critical areas? For example, will we invite more overseas transport operators to join our public bus network? My second clarification relates to the interaction of this Bill with the Significant Investments Review Act. Member Saktiandi spoke about this and the Minister also spoke about this in his opening speech.”
“Thank you, Sir. Just a quick one. I thank the Minister for the reply and for her firm assurances that the recommendations are being looked into. From her smiles, I have a sense that maybe the recommendations will be implemented. But, I think she mentioned about the accessibility fund and that they are considering increasing it to 80%; but only after the Code is reviewed, which could take another year. Could I just ask that in the interim we consider increasing the co-funding to 80% now, because I know cost is a big factor for building owners; and, I think, if we increase it to 80%, there is a good chance that more of the building owners will install the lactation pods or construct a lactation room.”
“I have filed many Parliamentary Questions and I have pushed hard for positive changes. My efforts in this House have really been made possible by the tremendous work done by the Breastfeeding Mothers' Support Group Singapore both in the background and in the forefront. It has been a privilege working with them in the past four years. So, let me end by thanking the Breastfeeding Mothers' Support Group Singapore, led by Elaine, for speaking up and fighting hard for all breastfeeding mothers. Many of them, including Elaine, are here with us this evening and are sitting in the Gallery. They continue to wish that we move towards embracing rather than just tolerating breastfeeding. They have waited for a long time and I hope we finally fulfil their wish. Finally, Sir, I end with this same quote I used in the previous Motion which expresses the wishes of our breastfeeding mothers: "I breastfeed Not because I think I am better. Not because I think less of formula feeding moms. Not because I want attention. Not because I want to show my breasts to others. I breastfeed Because I couldn't imagine it any other way. Because my child wants to be nourished from me. Because this is what nature intended. Because this was the right choice for my family." [Applause.]”
“Again, this will help building owners. Sir, let me end by addressing one of the most common feedback I receive about providing lactation rooms. Some have asked why provide it when there might not be breastfeeding mothers in the office currently? Why waste the space and resources? The issue here is not just about providing a physical space but about shifting mindsets, removing stigma and ending the discrimination. In this day and age, we do not ask why there is a need to provide an accessible toilet. In the same Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment that I have mentioned so many times in this speech, accessible toilets for adults with disabilities and seniors must be present at a huge number of locations. We recognise that our buildings should be inclusive in making sure that accessible toilets are widely available, even if some buildings may not have adults with disabilities or seniors. We have used this Code to shift mindsets when it comes to adults with disabilities or seniors. For them, we have used this code to ensure that we are inclusive. Why the disparity when it comes to breastfeeding mothers? We should use the same Code to now shift mindsets, remove stigma and end the discrimination breastfeeding mothers face. In conclusion, my two recommendations are that we require at least one lactation room per 2,500 square metres in GFA in offices and business parks and make more lactation room facilities mandatory. Sir, I know some people are asking why on earth does this guy keep talking about breastfeeding. I first learnt about the difficulties that breastfeeding mothers face when it was raised at my public dialogue session in February 2020. In the past four years, I have spoken repeatedly about this in this House.”
“Since the Code already recognises that these facilities are important, I propose we take a small step further and mandate that lactation rooms in workplaces be not just equipped with three items but the following items as well, in order of priority: one, a door that is lockable; two, a mirror; three, a wash basin with liquid detergent and paper towels; four, a dispenser for hot water; and five, a waste bin. Many of these facilities, such as a waste bin, water dispenser, mirror and a lock are, in fact, very basic. They do not require significant additional cost for building owners to provide. In the BMSG survey, mothers have stated that the above features are important in a lactation room. Beyond these items, BMSG also has a wishlist of items they hope to have in a lactation room including: one, a small table; two, a steriliser; and three, a dedicated refrigerator with freezer for use by breastfeeding mothers only. I hope MND will review the Code with the recommendations of breastfeeding mothers in mind and mandate more facilities in lactation rooms in workplaces. I recognise that not all building owners are able to immediately meet higher standards or provide more lactation rooms. I hope MND can implement these new standards progressively. We can start by making sure all new buildings comply with these new standards. I also hope MND can increase the co-payment quantum in the Accessibility Fund from the current 60% to 80% for the construction of lactation rooms. We already provide the co-funding of 80% for Basic Accessibility features so why not lactation rooms too? This will help building owners significantly. Lastly, there is the option of installing lactation pods which will be much faster and easier to install as compared to constructing a lactation room.”
“I should remind this House that the pain breastfeeding mothers feel is not just on an emotional level but physically as well. When a breastfeeding mother fails to pump at the right time, their breasts can become swollen and create sharp, burning pains. It can even cause infections. Breastfeeding mothers need help and we should change our policies to provide this help. My second proposal is that we mandate the facilities required in lactation rooms at workplaces. Under the existing Code, there is a list of nine items a lactation room should be equipped with. These are comfortable sitting, diaper changing stations, waste bins for disposing used diapers, wash basins with liquid detergent and paper towels, dispensers for hot and cold water, vending machines for beverages and diapers, socket outlets for breast pumps, mirrors and refrigerators with freezers for milk storage. These standards sound very good, but it is only stated that these items "should be" rather than "must be" provided. Furthermore, the Code only requires lactation rooms in workplaces to have three out of the nine items. These are comfortable sitting, socket outlets for breast pumps and refrigerators with freezers. The Code also only states that a lockable cubicle is preferred, but not mandated. Why? Should this not be the most important feature to mandate? We need mandatory standards so that all mothers are assured that when they see a lactation room, it is able to serve its purpose.”
“Data from WeWork between January and May 2023 found over 1,300 hours of bookings for their lactation rooms, showing the high demand for lactation rooms. So many mothers have shared stories about rushing to a lactation room during their lunch break only to find that another mother is already using it. One mother shared with BMSG that she has had to wait 15 to 30 minutes outside a lactation room as a mother was already pumping inside. Another mother told me that she would sometimes only have five minutes left for her own lunch after expressing her milk. No mother should have to choose between feeding herself or her child. It is also clear again that buildings with more occupants have higher needs. In fact, the Code already recognises that this as it states that "the number of lactation rooms to be provided should be based on the scale of the building and the needs of the building users". Again, I propose that we peg the number of lactation rooms to the size of the building by requiring at least one lactation room per 2,500 square metres in GFA. MND has said that the GFA threshold is a base guideline meant to strike a balance between needs and the efficient use of space, and that some buildings go beyond these requirements. Indeed, as Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad shared when we debated this issue four years ago, MND itself has two lactation rooms in the MND Headquarters within the floors they occupied while MOM has five in its two office buildings. I appreciate the Government going above and beyond for its employees and the Government clearly recognises the need. But what about all the women not working for the Government? They too need help and support.”
“There are many who have gone above and beyond the minimum requirements to provide lactation rooms and with better facilities. One example is WeWork. I had the opportunity to visit one of their offices with four lactation rooms in a single building. Their lactation rooms were lockable and available for use through a booking system. They also came with a dedicated fridge and freezer, electrical sockets, comfortable armchairs, sinks and water dispensers. Many others have taken similar steps to support breastfeeding mothers. That is indeed good news, but the reality is that for many building owners, it will take a change in the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment before a lactation room is provided or more lactation rooms are provided with better facilities. Let me stress that I do understand that many employers face both financial and space constraints in terms of providing a lactation room, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As such, the call today is for building owners who have more resources than SMEs to provide the lactation rooms. Let us now talk about solutions. My first proposal is to amend the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment to require at least one lactation room per 2,500 square metres in GFA in offices and business parks. As mentioned, the Code requires only at least one lactation room in offices and business parks of 10,000 square metres or more in GFA. We need to ensure that the Code applies to the majority of offices and business parks rather than the small minority which is currently the case. A single lactation room in a building above 10,000 square metres in GFA is also just not sufficient.”
“In a survey conducted by BMSG in August last year of around 370 nursing mothers, the majority of respondents shared that their working location does not have dedicated facilities for nursing mothers to breastfeed or express milk. Respondents shared a variety of locations that they have used to express milk instead. These included at their desk, meeting rooms, storerooms and even sadly toilets. One mother shared, "Currently, there is no private room that can be used for pumping so the only option is to pump in the toilet if I go to office. I am quite concerned about the hygiene and inconvenience caused to other colleagues as they cannot use the toilet while I am pumping." The need for lactation rooms is real and for many larger buildings, clearly more than one lactation room is needed. One mother shared, "There are many occasions that I have to wait 30 to 40 minutes to use the only nursing room in a six-storey building." Expressing breastmilk does take time and many breastfeeding mothers do not have the luxury of time to queue. The last problem is that we do not even have sufficient proper standards for lactation rooms. It is not even mandated in the Code that the lactation room is lockable, and in those cases, a mother would constantly fear that someone might walk into the room during what is a very vulnerable moment for them. We must remember again that this lack of proper lactation rooms reinforces workplace norms against breastfeeding. It reinforces the discrimination and stigma that breastfeeding mothers face. The problems I have highlighted can be solved and I am glad many are stepping forward on their own to provide help. It is not all bad news. There is good news too.”
“In February this year, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and maternity hospitals reported breastfeeding as being on the rise. HPB said a national survey in 2021 to 2022 showed that the prevalence of breastfeeding was high at 97%. Among infants from birth to under six months, nearly 40% of infants were exclusively breastfed. Mothers are also breastfeeding longer. A Nielsen IQ Baby Power 2022 study showed that women are nursing their babies for an average of 11.8 months in 2022. This is an increase from 8.1 months in 2018. The data very importantly shows that many mothers continue to breastfeed after their maternity leave of four months is over. Lactation rooms are not a luxury, but something which all working mothers who are breastfeeding desperately need. In a survey of 971 mothers conducted by BMSG in 2022, eight in 10 mothers shared that a lactation room would be one of the most useful forms of workplace support. Sir, I have shown why lactation rooms are needed and now let me now share what the problems are, specifically on the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment. Currently under the Code, at least one lactation room must be provided in offices and business parks of 10,000 square metres or more in GFA. The first two problems are the threshold and the minimum requirement of only one lactation room. In September 2023, in response to my Parliamentary Question, Minister Desmond Lee shared that there are around 3,950 offices that are below 10,000 square metres in GFA and only 300 offices that are above 10,000 square metres in GFA. This means that the vast majority of offices are not required to provide a lactation room. This, we urgently need to fix. On the ground, breastfeeding mothers directly face this lack of lactation rooms.”
“Sir, I know the Government cares about this issue and wants to provide the help that is so desperately needed. A few months ago, the Breastfeeding Mother's Support Group Singapore (BMSG) met with Government agencies to share their concerns and for the Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of National Development (MND), Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Building and Construction Authority (BCA) to hear firsthand about the challenges and difficulties breastfeeding mothers face. I saw a genuine concern from all the public servants in the room. I thank Minister Indranee for organising the meeting and for all the public servants who spent their valuable time brainstorming possible ways forward. I went away from the meeting knowing that we have a team who are keen to provide a listening ear to understand the concerns on the ground and want to provide a helping hand and make positive changes. Today, I will offer two recommendations on the positive changes breastfeeding mothers hope will be made. First, requiring at least one lactation room per 2,500 square metres in gross floor area (GFA) in offices and business parks. And second, make certain lactation room facilities mandatory. I should first stress that my speech today is not about why breastfeeding is good. Indeed, some mothers cannot or choose not to breastfeed and we should respect them all the same. But we should note that an increasing number of mothers are breastfeeding and our policies and our physical environment have not kept pace. So, let me start by first sharing why there is not just a need for lactation rooms but that there is an increasing need for lactation rooms. This lack of lactation rooms is a growing problem.”
“Sir, it has been almost two years since my last Adjournment Motion on "A more inclusive workplace for breastfeeding mothers". I wish I could report back to Parliament that things have got better for most breastfeeding mothers but hand on heart, I do not believe it has. I sincerely believe that it will take a change in policies to be able to move the ground, shift mindsets and end the discrimination and stigma that breastfeeding mothers face. In the past two years, I continue to hear stories of the challenges and difficulties breastfeeding mothers face at work. I will share their stories today. The discrimination and stigma they face is real, the pain they feel is both on an emotional and physical level. It is painful when their breasts become engorged from being unable to express their milk, the discriminatory words they hear are equally painful and they have to worry even about the quality of their breast milk. Fion, a breastfeeding mother shared that, "I previously worked in a unit where chemicals are handled. Unhealthy aerosols are in the air and there are no proper nursing rooms. I remember using a corner of my manager's room, pantry or even the storage room just to express breast milk. It did worry me that the environment will cause undesirable effects to the milk. I was also disappointed when unkind remarks were passed due to special requests such as splitting my lunch hour so that I can pump breast milk. Is it too much to ask for a clean and comfortable space with an understanding management team? I'm just trying to feed my baby." This House must remember just that, that all these breastfeeding mothers are trying to do, is to feed their children. We should do everything we can to help them fulfil this basic need.”
“As I mentioned earlier, under the new section 15(4), where it appears to the Commissioner that a provider-owned CII has not met any standard or provided false or misleading information, the Commissioner can order an audit or on-site inspection. Under the new section 16F(3), where it appears to a Commissioner that a third-party-owned CII has not met any standards or provided false or misleading information, the Commissioner can order a designated provider to cease using the CII. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the Commissioner will provide the grounds of its belief for any decision made or action taken to entities subject to its decision or action? Can the Senior Minister of State share if the entity will be given the opportunity to make representations or to challenge the grounds of the Commissioner's belief? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“CSA also clarified that it would endeavour, where possible, to give notice to CII owners before conducting on-site inspections. The reality is that what is necessary for on-site inspections can be very broad, depending on how CSA scopes the investigation. This is especially since the investigation is for CSA to determine whether the CII owner has complied with any requirement or submitted any false or incomplete information. This means that the scope of investigation is likely going to be very open-ended. Giving the CII owner notice before conducting on-site inspection also does not directly address the concerns to do with information collection. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on what steps will be taken to protect information obtained from respondents? How long will the information obtained be retained for and how will the information be retained? Can the Senior Minister of State also confirm that the power to obtain information does not extend to legally privileged information, and will CSA require entities to waive legal privilege? My third and final point is on the basis for the Commissioner's decisions and beliefs. A number of provisions allow the Commissioner to make orders or directions where it appears to the Commissioner that certain conditions are met. For instance, under the new section 16F(3), where it appears to the Commissioner that a third-party-owned CII do not meet standards and there is no reasonable excuse for failing to meet these standards, the Commissioner may order the designated provider to cease using the CII.”
“Can the Senior Minister of State clarify how the remedies sought, pursuant to any breach of the legally binding commitment will serve to protect Singapore's cybersecurity? For instance, will a Commissioner require a designated provider to obtain an order of specific performance to compel third-party-owned CIIs to provide information it is required to provide under the legally-binding commitment? If the remedy for any breach of the legally-binding commitment is only monetary damages for the designated provider, it may be difficult to see how this will contribute to cybersecurity. Can the Senior Minister of State also clarify how it envisions any remedies being effectively enforced against third-party-owned CIIs that are not located in Singapore? My second point is on the information collected by CSA. A number of provisions empower CSA to collect information. For instance, the new sections 17A, 18A and 18H empower the Commissioner to obtain information from an entity to determine if an entity fulfils the criteria for designation. The new section 15(4) allows the Commissioner to carry out a site inspection and audit of a provider-owned CII that appears to be in breach of any requirement. The new section 29A provides monitoring powers for licensing officers to inspect records of licensed cybersecurity service providers. Respondents to the public consultation raised concerns about the use of such extensive powers to obtain the CII owner's business confidential information. Respondents also suggested guidelines and safeguards to prevent abuse of such powers. CSA clarified that the amendments prevent CSA from obtaining confidential information beyond the scope of what is necessary for the on-site inspection.”
“Sir, this Bill will enhance national cybersecurity. It will update existing provisions relating to the cybersecurity of CIIs and expand CSA. I commend CSA for conducting a public consultation on the Bill and publishing its responses to the feedback provided. CSA has also continued closed-door industry consultations and has committed to further consultations in coming up with codes and standards. I have three points of clarifications to raise. My first point is on the legally-binding commitment that designated providers are required to obtain from the owners of third-party-owned CIIs. The new sections 16A and 16F require designated providers to obtain legally binding commitments to provide certain information and notifications and to maintain certain standards. Given that the commitment is provided by the third-party-owned CIIs to the designated providers, in the event of any breach of the commitment, the designated provider is the entity with any right to recourse. Can the Ministry confirm that the legally binding commitment must be stated to be governed by Singapore law, subject to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts and be enforceable in Singapore? This may be important if the third-party-owned CIIs are not located in Singapore. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the Commissioner can compel a designated provider to take action against the third-party-owned CIIs pursuant to the legally binding commitment? If so, can Senior Minister of State also clarify what are the intended actions and remedies that the designated provider is supposed to pursue against the third-party-owned CIIs in the event of a breach?”
“Sir, could I ask the Minister of State what are the penalties for employers that continuously refuse to comply with the tripartite guidelines? For example, again, refusing that their request for FWAs on unreasonable grounds. Second, if the penalties are similar to the other tripartite guidelines, which is the curtailment of work pass privileges, for companies who do not employ foreigners, what then are the penalties for them?”
“My third point is on the support of individuals subjected to DOs and PSOs. The Ministry has stated that DOs and PSOs are intended to “break the vicious cycle of gang lawlessness and the climate of terror they instilled”. In order to break this vicious cycle, can the Minister of State share what programmes are in place for individuals subject to DOs and PSOs to reduce the need for the DOs or PSOs to be extended? Can the Minister of State also share the recidivism rate of individuals subject to DOs and PSOs? My fourth and final point is on witness protection. I suggested in my speech on the previous amendments to the Act that the Ministry should study other solutions for securing witness testimony to reduce the need for the CLTPA powers. The Minister of State shared that the suggestions considered were not workable because it is difficult to have secret testimony from one witness who cannot be cross-examined in the trial process. However, the Minister of State also said that the Ministry will review other options for securing witness testimonies. Can the Minister of State provide an update on its review and options that were considered? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“There are three types of Advisory Committees: the first to review every Detention Order (DO) and Police Supervision Order (PSO); the second to review every detainee’s case at least once annually; and the third to review detention cases for extension beyond 10 years. The Advisory Committee, which reviews DOs and PSOs, is chaired by a Judge of the Supreme Court. Its members are senior lawyers and respected members of society, such as Justices of the Peace. The Advisory Committee will consider all materials that the Minister relied on in issuing the DO or PSO. The compositions of the other two types of Advisory Committees are not as clear. Can the Minister of State share the composition of the other two Advisory Committees which review existing detainees’ cases at least once annually and for extension beyond 10 years? As these two Advisory Committees must consider the detainee’s suitability and readiness for release, can Minister share whether there are professionals on the Advisory Committees who have the relevant expertise? For instance, the Advisory Committee may have to take a view on the detainee’s psychological state or receptiveness to rehabilitation. Additionally, section 40(3) also requires the Advisory Committees to consider the requirements of public safety, the protection of individuals and the safeguarding of sources of information. Can the Minister of State share what materials are provided to the two Advisory Committees that review existing detainees’ cases to enable them to consider all these factors? Can the Minister of State also share whether the two Advisory Committees that review existing detainees’ cases regularly exercise their powers under section 40 to summon and examine witnesses, and to compel the production of documents?”
“This Bill will renew the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for the 15th time. When I last spoke on the Bill to renew the CLTPA, I said that the title of the Bill belies the fact that the Act is far from temporary. The debate that we are having today on extending the CLPTA is an important safeguard. This ensures that there is Parliamentary scrutiny on the continuing need for the Executive’s exceptional powers under the CLPTA. While I understand the continuing public order and security pressures that justify the exercise of these powers, we should never forget the extraordinary nature of the CLTPA. The grounds for the Act and the powers under the CLPTA should be closely examined every time the Act comes up for renewal. I have four points for clarification. My first point is on the obligations imposed on persons subject to Police Supervision Orders under section 33. In the previous amendment, the obligations on a person subject to a Police Supervision Order were moved into subsidiary legislation. The obligations are now set out under rules that the Minister can make under section 49. Minister shared that the rationale for doing so was to allow the obligations, which are operational in nature, to be amended based on evolving needs. Can the Minister of State share the nature of these obligations that have been introduced in the rules? How frequently are the obligations reviewed and how have they evolved since the previous amendment to the Act? My second point is on the composition and processes of the Advisory Committees. The Advisory Committees are an important check on the broad powers under the Act.”
“Thank you, Sir. Just one follow-up. I think that the concern is that while some have the luxury of flexible work arrangements – and I fought hard to legislate this right to work from home – I think the concern now is that, it is probably the lower-income workers who have this minimum of seven days of annual leave and who do not have, again, have the luxury of working from home. So, I hope MOM can look into this from that perspective as well. By increasing the minimum entitlement, it really would help our lower-income workers.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank Senior Minister of State for the reply. First, could I just check whether the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is concerned that by increasing the minimum annual leave entitlement, it will result in lower productivity in the company? Because I think it might be the other way, that a more well-rested workforce will be a more productive workforce. Second, I think three years ago, the Senior Minister of State shared in this House that the worry is that increasing annual leave entitlement would entail business costs. It has been three years, so I did give the Senior Minister of State a good break. Could he just share an update on what exactly are these business costs? And also, whether – taking into account my first point – where a more well-rested workforce will be a more productive workforce and that might actually negate some of these business costs that MOM is concerned about?”
“Constantly introducing new offences in order to tackle specific methods and technologies if unchecked may lead to an extensive, fragmented and unwieldy set of criminal laws. This may be difficult for the layperson to keep track of and understand. Just last year, we amended the Computer Misuse Act and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to introduce new offences involving the use of Singpass credentials. Existing Penal Code provisions on abetment or conspiracy may potentially be broad enough to cover some of the new SIM-card related offences. For instance, the Bill introduces new offences of providing a person's personal information to register a SIM card that the person knows will be used to commit an offence. Such conduct may potentially be covered under the existing provisions for abetment or conspiracy. Can the Minister share the rationale for introducing new offences instead of relying on existing provisions for abetment and conspiracy offences? Are the new provisions intended to address gaps in our laws where individuals could not be prosecuted because our laws were not precise enough to tackle that form of wrongdoing? My concern is that we end up with a proliferation of laws which become too complicated to understand. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“That said, the Bill now requires a Police officer to assess if there is sufficient basis for the reasonable suspicion that a conduct is attributable to a mental disorder before apprehending a person. This is a different skillset from handling a person with mental health conditions. Can the Minister share what training will be provided to Police officers to assess whether the threat of physical harm is attributable to a mental disorder? The Ministry explained in a press release that a person may be traced in Police's records to have a history of mental disorder. Can the Minister share what other records are available to the Police in determining whether the threat of physical harm is attributable to a mental disorder? For example, does the Police have access to records maintained by IMH or other medical institutions? Further, can the Minister share what steps will be taken after the individual has been apprehended? For example, will the person be referred for immediate treatment for the mental disorder? If so, are the medical institutions ready for the potential increase in these referrals? Is there a possibility of the person being released back into the community instead of being referred for immediate treatment? If so, how will the Police assess whether the person is suitable for release back into the community? My third and final point is on the new SIM-card related offences. The Bill introduces new SIM card-related offences. These offences target irresponsible or fraudulent registration, transfer and possession of SIM cards. I appreciate that the new offences target a set of conduct that is facilitating the growing social problem of scams. However, the ways of using technology for wrongdoings are constantly evolving.”
“Lastly, can Minister also explain, practically speaking, how a person requested to help should determine whether the Police is authorised or not to apprehend a person? Next, my second point is on the apprehension of mentally disordered persons. The Bill introduces amendments to allow the Police to apprehend a mentally disordered person, when there is a reasonable likelihood of danger to human life or personal safety posed by the person. The danger does not have to be imminent and actual harm does not have to be caused. Some have raised concerns that we may be over-reliant on the Police in cases of mental health crisis. One alternative that has been raised is that mental health professionals should lead the emergency response in such cases, where possible. This is already done in several cities. In the city of Eugene, Oregon, crisis counsellors from a community programme called Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets or CAHOOTS, receive hundreds of hours of training and send responders to 3% to 8% of police calls. Can the Minister share if Police officers responding to cases of mental health crisis could be accompanied, where possible, by a mental health professional or someone with specialist training? For instance, we have Victim Care Officers who are specially trained to work with the Police to support victims of crime. Would it be possible to similarly train specialist community-first responders to support the Police in responding to cases involving individuals with mental health conditions? As for the Police officers, I understand that they are trained to handle persons with mental health conditions.”
“Sir, this Bill will strengthen our ability to tackle scams, make Home Team operations more efficient and facilitate Yellow Ribbon Singapore's operations. I have three points for clarification. My first point is on the handling of attempted suicide cases. The new section 26AA sets out the manner of apprehension in attempted suicide cases. Under this section, the Police may apprehend a person who is reasonably suspected to be about to attempt to commit suicide. The media has reported on how the Police is working with the IMH crisis response team for cases where there are signs of attempted suicide by calling a dedicated IMH hotline to conduct a suicide risk assessment. The Police also has a Crisis Negotiation Unit to handle attempted suicide cases. Can the Minister share the Police's process for dealing with an attempted suicide case, including the involvement of the IMH crisis response team and the Crisis Negotiation Unit? At what point will the Police apprehend a person reasonably suspected to be about to commit suicide? What training is provided to officers to handle attempted suicide cases and to apprehend a person involved in an attempted suicide case? Under the section 26AA(5), every person is bound to help an authorised Police officer in apprehending a person, the Police officer is authorised to apprehend. Can the Minister elaborate on the nature of this obligation imposed on a person “bound to help”? What are the consequences if the person “bound to help” refuses to provide help? Is a layperson expected to know of their obligation to help and, if so, what steps will be taken to communicate to laypersons that they are obliged to help?”
“” This proviso about being necessary for the protection of the public is not included in relation to individuals ordered to isolate in a hospital. Can the Minister clarify the significance of this difference? Additionally, there are certain renewable time limits prescribed for Director-General’s other powers. For example, under the new section 17, the Director-General may declare a premise to be an isolation area for up to a period of 90 days. This can be extended for a period up to 90 days at any one time. Can the Minister share if the Ministry considered including similar renewable time limits for the isolation and detention of individuals? My final point is on updates to the HIV disclosure laws. Under the new section 23(1A), the disclosure requirement for a person with HIV infection does not apply if he or she has maintained an undetectable HIV viral load for at least the prescribed period preceding the sexual activity. I thank the Ministry for updating our HIV disclosure law to be aligned with the latest scientific understanding. Members of civil society have also shared with me that they are heartened by this development. Can the Minister confirm that the length of the prescribed period and the threshold for determining undetectable HIV viral load will be determined and periodically updated based on the latest state of scientific knowledge? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Can the Minister clarify whether these principles under the Mental Capacity Act continue to apply when the parent or guardian is served with a notice to ensure the compliance of the individual with requirements under the Infectious Diseases Act? How should a parent or guardian of an individual lacking mental capacity balance their responsibilities under the Infectious Diseases Act and the principles they must abide under the Mental Capacity Act? [Mr Speaker in the Chair] My second point is on the Director-General’s power to require classes of persons to provide information or samples for any public health surveillance programmes, investigations or surveys. The Director-General already has powers to require any person to provide any information or sample. The amendment to section 7 will expand the scope of the powers from any person to any classes of persons. While there is public health interest in doing so, there is also greater risk from any breach of data privacy. Can Minister share what safeguards are in place for the management and storage of the information collected? Will the data collected be anonymised? Are there any time limits for how long the data collected can be stored? Will there be an effort to heighten safeguards when the provision of information or sample is from classes of persons as opposed to from individuals? My third point is on Director-General’s power to order detention and isolation. The Director-General already has the power to order detention and isolation of certain individuals under the existing section 15 of the Infectious Diseases Act. The new section 15 expands and specifies this power. It specifies that individuals may now be ordered to isolate for a period of time “necessary for the protection of the public.”
“This Bill will enhance the Government’s powers to deal with future pandemics, introduce more nuanced public health measures and align HIV disclosure requirements with scientific developments. I have four points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the responsibility of parents and guardians. The new section 2A places responsibility on parents and guardians to ensure that an individual with an intellectual disability or who otherwise lacks mental capacity to comply with requirements under the Infectious Disease Act. The parent or guardian may be served with a notice to ensure the compliance of the individual. The parent or guardian may be found liable for an offence if they fail to ensure that the individual complies with any requirement of the Act. Under the Mental Capacity Act, there are certain principles to balance a person’s right to make their own decisions and the need to protect them. These principles include that before an act is done or a decision is made, it must be considered whether the purpose of the act or decision can be effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action. Another principle is that a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that the person lacks capacity. A further principle is that a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because the person makes an unwise decision. When a parent or guardian is served with a notice to ensure compliance of the individual, the measures taken to ensure compliance may involve some restriction of rights or freedom of action.”
“Can the Minister of State also confirm that the authorities will not approach an individual to seek production of the privileged communication? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Can the Minister of State confirm that what this means is that such a person must still provide information that might incriminate them but may preface it with a claim that the statement might incriminate them? Will the individual be informed that they can preface their statement with a claim that the statement might incriminate them? This is because if there is no such notice, individuals who know to preface their statement might tend to be those who are aware or legally advised of their right against self-incrimination. In contrast, those who may not know of this right may tend to be those who are less privileged, socio-economically. Can the Minister of State also clarify whether this claim must strictly be made before the individual provides their statement? What are the implications if the individual only states in the middle of the statement that it may be incriminating? Is such a statement still admissible in criminal proceedings? Additionally, is there a strict format or wording that such a claim must take? If the individual will be informed about their option to make such a claim, will they be informed about how they should make such a claim? Those with limited or no legal advice on their rights against self-incrimination should not be penalised if their statement fails to meet some strict, undisclosed standard. My third and final point is on the treatment of privileged communications. Under the new section 89(3), a legal counsel who refuses to disclose privileged communications must still give the name and address of the person to whom the privileged communication was made. Can the Minister of State clarify the rationale of this requirement?”
“Sir, this Bill will enhance MAS' investigative, supervisory and inspection powers to more effectively ensure compliance by financial institutions. This is a positive move that strengthens the integrity of our financial institutions. I thank MAS for conducting a public consultation and incorporating its findings into this Bill. I have three points of clarification. My first clarification is on enhancement and expansion of MAS' investigative powers. The amendments will expand MAS' investigative powers under five pieces of legislation and provide MAS new investigative powers under one additional piece of legislation. Can the Minister of State share how much additional workload will this entail for MAS' Enforcement Department? Can the Minister of State share how the expanded investigative powers will impact the current MAS-Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) Joint Investigation Arrangement? Can the Minister of State also share what steps will be taken to ensure that MAS' enforcement officers are prepared for the expanded scope of powers? Police are guided by the Police General Orders (PGOs) in carrying out their investigative powers. Given the expanding scope of MAS' enforcement officers' powers, can the Minister of State share what equivalent guidance there is for MAS' enforcement officers? My second point is on the right against self-incrimination. The new section 89(1) provides that a person is not excused from disclosing information on the ground that the disclosure of information might tend to incriminate the person. However, under section 89(2) when a person claims before making a statement disclosing information that the statement might tend to incriminate the person, that statement is not admissible against the person in criminal proceedings.”
“I thank you, Sir. Could I just ask the Minister, whether MOE has reviewed the report that I cited in my Parliamentary Question (PQ)? And second, whether we are seeing an increasing or decreasing trend in terms of number of teachers that are seeking help from our in-house counselling?”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I just have two clarifications? One, what is the average number of lactation rooms, in terms of per university, per polytechnic and ITE, respectively? Second, I think that there really is a time concern when it comes to the teachers because unlike other workers, they cannot pump while they are teaching. So, there is a request for more lactation rooms because they really cannot queue for these facilities.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Could I just check what concerns the Ministry has in terms of coming up with a ban on the use of electric collars? I think Senior Minister of State Tan himself tried the use of the electrical collar and it is painful. Obviously, it is painful for the dogs as well and that is why it is being used to train them. So, how could it not be a physical abuse when it causes pain and suffering to the dogs which are being trained?”
“I have raised this previously and I am asking again that the Government provide more subsidies for fertility screening and create a separate MediSave category for fertility screening. Ensure Nurses Have Sufficient Rest All of us are grateful for the life-saving work of our nurses and healthcare workers during COVID-19. They put themselves on the frontline to save lives. They were stretched during COVID-19, and we all hoped that things will get better for them post-COVID-19. Unfortunately, things have not gotten better yet. Our hospitals remain stretched. In December 2023, the median waiting time to be warded was around 17 to 20 hours, and even exceeded 20 hours in certain hospitals. In my Budget speech last year, I spoke up for more rest time for nurses. The ANGEL scheme announced by MOH is a positive move. But in addition to financial incentives, nurses hope we can do more to ensure they have sufficient rest. For already exhausted nurses, they dread the PM-AM-PM-AM shift, or PAPA shift. This means that nurses work two consecutive sets of afternoon shifts followed by morning shifts. I understand that Khoo Teck Puat Hospital has looked into PAPA shifts and has made positive changes. Can MOH ensure that all hospitals do away with this PAPA shift and that we look into ensuring nurses have a minimum amount of rest between shifts, similar to what we do for flight attendants?”
“Many couples tell me of the long waits at public hospitals for IVF procedures. We can help reduce this. Co-funding support from the Government is important to allow couples to access IVF which is extremely expensive. However, there is no support when couples go to private clinics for IVF. Channeling some couples to private clinics will help ease the load on our public hospitals. Can MOH consider allowing couples who have failed two IVF cycles in a public hospital to receive co-funding for treatment at a private clinic? There is no fiscal loss to the Government. For couples who have failed twice at public hospitals, this allows them to try a different approach to increase the chances of success. We are doing so much to get Singaporeans to have children. Couples undergoing IVF are a group that is trying so hard to have children and we are not doing enough to help them. Provide Subsidies for Fertility Testing Prime Minister Lee talked about how couples who want kids put off starting families, not realising how quickly it gets harder with each passing year. Couples are starting their families late and a study showed that Singaporean couples try for 3.4 years to conceive before seeking help if they are unable to conceive. Early fertility screening helps people catch problems early and avoid even more costly fertility treatments later when they are older and when it is harder to conceive. Not only does it save costs, but it also saves couples from the heartache and stress of multiple rounds of unsuccessful IVF if needed. The Government can view this also as cost savings. Again, spending more on fertility testing at an early stage might reduce future spending on subsidies for repeated IVF cycles as the success rates of IVF decreases with age.”
“Will the Government consider increasing the jail term for animal abuse so that we protect our animals as strongly as we protect our property? Mandating Sterilisation of Pet Cats Finally, this cat and mouse game is over. As promised by Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How last year, we are not pussyfooting around the issue of keeping cats in HDB flats. As much as the agencies are tired of me asking repeated questions on this, I am also tired of asking this every year for the past few years. But this change in policy must make sense. One of the reasons we banned the keeping of cats in HDB is because of caterwauling. I have experienced this firsthand when I used to live in Jurong West and I agree these cats make loud mating calls in the middle of the night. The solution is simple, sterilise the cats. Sterlised cats do not caterwaul. However, we are now proposing to allow the keeping of cats in HDB but not mandate the sterilisation of pet cats. We are setting ourselves up for future problems. In reversing the ban, we need to make sure we resolve the reasons for the ban in the first place. Mandating sterilisation also ensures people do not end up with too many cats as the cats will start breeding. I hope the Government will hear the calls from animal welfare groups and ensure we mandate the sterilisation of pet cats as a prerequisite for the keeping of cats in HDB flats.”
“Science tells us that reducing food sources is the best way to bring down the bird population. NParks’ own survey in 2021 found that the reduction in food sources due to COVID-19 reduced the numbers of rock pigeons. I know that gathering evidence of bird feeding is not easy. We can do more to help our enforcement officers. To tackle high-rise littering which similarly relies on enforcement through surveillance, we introduced a presumption clause. Where it is proved that littering acts have been committed from a flat, the owners or tenants will be presumed to have committed the offence unless they prove otherwise. Will the Ministry consider introducing a similar statutory presumption for the offence of wildlife feeding under the Wildlife Act? This will help our enforcement officers significantly, reduce the amount of bird feeding and address public concerns on this issue. It is a win-win solution. Increasing Penalties for Animal Abuse In 2023, Singapore witnessed a staggering 79% surge in cases of animal abuse under investigation, the highest number in 11 years. This is not merely a statistic, it is a depressing reality that speaks volumes about our society’s graciousness and regard for life. This is a call to review our animal welfare and protection laws. First, we need to address the inadequacy of penalties for acts of animal abuse. The current punishment for animal abuse is a maximum fine of up to $15,000 and/or an 18 months jail term for first-time offenders. In comparison, vandalism carries a penalty of $2,000 fine, imprisonment of up to three years and caning of between three to eight strokes for certain first-time offenders.”
“A recent report revealed that Singapore has lost 37% of our biodiversity. What we have left is precious and we must protect and treasure it. At the same time, I understand the need for development, the need to provide housing for fellow Singaporeans. We must find the middle ground. The middle ground must be a strong Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law to minimise the impact of our development. This, however, is not just about embedding the EIAs in our planning permissions or issuing guidelines for developers. It is about enshrining the EIA in a specific piece of legislation, standalone, and ensuring that we enforce this strong piece of legislation. I have pushed for this for many years now and I am not sure what is holding us back from ensuring that we protect our remaining green spaces in Singapore. It is time to have a proper, strong and robust EIA Law in Singapore. Designating More Marine Parks In our Adjournment Motion last year, together with Ms Nadia Samdin, we spoke about the rich biodiversity in the waters around Singapore. We shared about our passionate youth marine advocates. At COP15, we committed to conserving 30% of our blue spaces. Our marine ecosystem deserve protection and they are also our protection against climate change. We need all the help we can get in our fight against climate change. It has been 10 years since we designated Sisters’ Islands as a marine park and it has benefited greatly from the protection. It is time to consider expanding this protection to other key areas, such as the waters around Pulau Ubin, Pulau Jong and Lazarus Island, to name a few. Will the Government consider designating more marine sites as Marine Parks?”