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 5 of 37.
“I am glad that single unwed parents are now allowed to get a public rental flat or buy a BTO flat. However, it is strange that single unwed parents do not qualify for the PPHS. Single parents who are divorced or widowed qualify for PPHS, so why not single unwed parents? A single unwed parent recently approached me for help. She intends to apply for a BTO flat but like so many Singaporeans, she needs a place to stay while the flat is being built. It is especially difficult for her to rent a room in the open market as many do not want to rent to those with young children. There is also a cost factor. Renting from the open market for more than three years will deplete her savings significantly. I know we do allow single unwed parents to obtain PPHS but on a case-by-case basis, but this adds stress to someone who is already stressed. Single unwed parents should be treated the same as others when applying for PPHS. We should end the discrimination. PPHS Support”
“Sir, I thank all Members for joining us in this debate for fresh air, fresh food and fresh water, and a healthy planet we can call home. I thank all the staff members at MSE, SFA, NEA and PUB for all their hard work and their commitment towards ensuring a liveable and sustainable Singapore. And I thank Minister Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng for their commitment and leadership towards our economic resilience, resource resilience and climate resilience. But we cannot be resilient towards second-hand smoke, so I hope we are equally committed towards tackling this problem. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”
“Sir, I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey for the reply on the second-hand smoke issue. I think he mentioned 95% of the feedback providers do not get back to us. I think one of the reasons they do not get back is because they realise there is not much we can do other than issue advisories. So, could I ask again that the Ministry study what else we can do other than just issuing advisories? Second, maybe we could set up a taskforce, like the Public Toilet Taskforce. We could set up one taskforce to study this issue of second-hand smoke as well.”
“Will the Ministry consider expanding the "No Smoking Zone" to other busy streets and areas, such as the Central Business District and the Civic District?”
“I have been pushing the issue of second-hand smoke repeatedly for the past few years. We cannot end the MSE Committee of Supply (COS) without including this important issue. I know Senior Minister of State Amy Khor has reluctantly handed over this issue to Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng. I hope with a fresh pair of eyes and his healthy lungs – he exercises a lot – we can finally move forward on this issue of second-hand smoke. It is ironic that we are doing so much to protect public health, implement measures to reduce pollution levels and improve air quality but we do so little when it comes to protecting people from second-hand smoke in their own homes. Our homes should be our sanctuary. But for so many people, second-hand smoke is a deadly intruder. This should not be treated as a neighbourly dispute but instead, treated as a public health concern. A serious public health concern. I have given many suggestions to tackle second-hand smoke in homes. Beyond issuing advisories, can the Government share what it is doing to protect people from second-hand smoke in their own homes? Next, since 2019, Orchard Road has been designated a "No Smoking Zone". This means that smoking is only allowed in designated smoking areas. The Orchard Road "No Smoking Zone" was recently expanded to the Somerset Skate Park. It has been five years since we introduced the Orchard Road "No Smoking Zone". In 2021, Minister Grace Fu shared that MSE will monitor and assess the effectiveness of the Orchard Road "No Smoking Zone" before considering whether to designate other areas as "No Smoking Zones". Can the Ministry provide an update on its assessment?”
“Singapore's green transition should be a just and inclusive one. I am glad that the Climate Friendly Households Programme helps 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB households reduce their energy and water consumption. The programme gives eligible households vouchers to purchase refrigerators, shower fittings and LED lights. If all eligible households make the switch, this is the equivalent of taking 10,000 cars off the road. The water savings amount to 400 million gallons of water annually. The programme will expire on 20 March 2024. Can the Ministry share if there are plans to extend the programme? Additionally, will the Ministry consider expanding the scope of the programme to include more households and more appliances? In particular, can we consider expanding the programme to encourage passive cooling measures for households, such as installing heat-reflecting windows and adding insulation to windows and doors? Improving Indoor Air Quality”
“Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 must be a whole-of-nation effort that must involve businesses. In Budget 2023, Minister Grace Fu said that "businesses should do more with less". The Minister also said that while some upfront costs may be incurred, lower energy and resource used will lower costs over the long run. In a 2023 survey of businesses that have adopted technology to make the green transition, only 16% were confident of achieving their sustainability target. Businesses are optimistic about the green economy, but may lack the guidance needed to take concrete steps to transition. The $5 billion Future Energy Fund is a huge boost for the transition to cleaner fuels. I am also heartened by the extension and expansion of funds by SMEs, including through the Enterprise Financing Scheme and the Energy Efficiency Grant. Beyond making funds available, can the Government proactively reach out to SMEs on accessing and utilising these funds? I hope we can provide more support to SMEs to cross the barrier and translate funding into concrete actions on the ground. Helping Businesses Go Green”
“Sir, 2023 has been a busy and productive year for the Ministry. I thank the Ministry and the many public servants and civil society groups behind the scenes who have made all these progress possible. In 2024, we are one more year closer to the 2030 deadline in the Singapore Green Plan 2030 and the 2050 deadline to reach net-zero emissions here in Singapore. Every day, our planet is warming. I am glad we are acting fast and taking bold steps. I am glad the voices of many in this House and outside of this House have been heard and the Government has been taking concrete steps to look into what we have called for. Well, with the exception of secondhand smoke, for which we must do so much more. I know my Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) colleagues, fellow MPs and I will be asking lots more questions about the Ministry's plans for 2024. I look forward to a robust and lively debate. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Singapore Green Plan Progress”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100". When I stand up to speak in this House, I am often raising questions or asking the Ministry for things. This time, I am standing to thank the Ministry for the phenomenal job it has done on our climate policies. Of course, I still have questions and many more things to ask for, but those will come later. We have shown tremendous leadership on the global stage at the 28th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP28) on climate change. We co-facilitated ministerial consultations on climate mitigation and co-chaired the First Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement. At home, we are transiting to a low-carbon future by raising the carbon tax to $25 per tonne, tracking the public sector's performance on sustainability through the GreenGov.SG Report and enhancing the Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F). We are also taking steps to strengthen our climate resilience by looking into coastal protection, heat stress and updating our climate projects through the Third National Climate Change Study (V3). We have also taken concrete steps towards becoming a zero-waste nation. We introduced the disposable bag charge, the food waste reporting framework and will introduce the beverage container return scheme soon. We are taking care of our lower-income workers by extending the PWM to the waste collection and materials recovery sectors. We have made our living environment safer and more livable. We introduced the statutory presumption for littering from flats, looked into preventing disease outbreaks and made our hawker centres more vibrant. We have also made sure that our food and water supplies are resilient to safeguard against future crises.”
“In my Budget Debate speech, I shared about how our policies on migrant workers differentiate between "us" Singaporeans and "them" migrant workers. First, many workers do not have enough space. Our current dormitory standards require at least 3.5 square metres per resident. We are asking dormitories to only increase this by 0.1 square metre within the next six years. By contrast, our full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) have at least seven square metres per resident. Will MOM ensure that migrant workers have at least the same amount of space as our NSFs? Second, many workers do not have safe food. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires all catered food be consumed within four hours after it is prepared and be labelled with a "consume by" timestamp. Workers tell me that many of them are catered food without the timestamp and they regularly consume food way past the four-hour time frame. Will MOM ensure that food catered for workers in dormitories comply with existing food safety requirements? Third, and lastly, many workers are made to pay illegal kickbacks. Kickbacks are a form of corruption but are punished less severely. Will MOM increase the penalties for employment kickback offences to be equivalent to corruption offences and have better whistle-blower protections? Discouraging Hasty Reparations”
“Sir, could I just go back to the point where I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it is a medical social worker that does the first, sort of, diagnosis. Is that the case or could we have another scenario where once the child is born, then a social worker would already come to see how we can help journey with this teenage mother?”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think the report does say the number of births from teenage mothers, but it does not have the breakdown of the data that I have requested in my Parliamentary Question (PQ). So, if I could ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether that data could be provided. Second, I do understand that some support is given to these teenage mothers, but could I just ask whether there is a specific social worker that is attached to these teenage mothers to journey with them along the way and how long exactly is this help provided to them? I am asking all these because I am helping this child now who has been sentenced to a Girls' Home and I just realised that her mother actually gave birth to her when she was 15. So, I think there might be a vicious cycle ahead that we might need to address.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I just ask why are we not keen on tracking how many of these retailers are voluntarily imposing this bag charge? I think that would be useful to tell the effects of the bag charge that we have implemented on how many people out there are already doing it on their own, without the legislation.”
“Sir, can I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary two quick clarifications? One, I know we are increasing the number of nurses. Could I also ask whether we are equally putting in an amount of effort in increasing the number of support healthcare staff as well? Second, I am very glad we have announced the Award for Nurses' Grace, Excellence and Loyalty (ANGEL) scheme for nurses. I am just wondering whether we could also extend that to the administrative and support healthcare workers that work alongside the nurses.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think this pilot has been going on for about seven years now. So, I am just wondering when the study will finally come to an end. Is there a specific number of patients which we need to go to this study before we can consider ending the study and nationalising PGS? Second, could I also asked whether the MOH is looking into expanding this to the private sector as well, where the private assisted reproduction (AR) clinics can also be part of this study, so that we can finally reach that number of patients that we are hoping to?”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for that reply. Could I then ask what can teachers do if a students and parents continue to contact them after office hours?”
“Thank you, Sir. Can I ask again on paternity leave? Rather than just have ASAP, whether we can have a firm timeline on when we will mandate the extra two weeks of paternity leave. I think that is important for the fathers, but most important is for the companies, especially for the SMEs, which can then plan ahead and have resources made available in time for when we mandate this. I mean, we do this for carbon tax, where we are given a whole roadmap on when we will increase carbon tax so that companies can get ready. I hope we can do this also for paternity leave. Second, on lactation rooms, we do have the Accessibility Fund. I am just wondering whether the Government can consider increasing the co-payment. The current rate is at 60%; whether it can increase it to 80%. Similar for accessible toilets, so that more building owners perhaps will be spurred on to build the lactation rooms and this will help the breastfeeding mothers as well.”
“We recognise that our buildings should be inclusive in making sure that accessible toilets are widely available, even if some buildings may not have elderly or disabled users. Why the disparity when it comes to lactation rooms? About half of our population are female and many of them will go on to become mothers who should have the option of breastfeeding their children, if they wish to. We try to encourage Singaporeans to set up families through bonuses and vouchers. Designing our public facilities for families sends a visible and clear signal that this is a Singapore made for families. It has been more than five years since the Code was last updated. Will the Government make our Code more inclusive in the next iteration of the Code by lowering the gross floor area (GFA) threshold for the requirement of lactation rooms and also mandating more lactation rooms in buildings – the same way we do for accessible toilets? Support for Families with Young Children”
“We support companies when it comes to giving their employees time to serve their reservist. We should provide the same level of support when it comes to giving their employees time to welcome their babies into this world. This will help us truly become a Singapore made for families. More Lactation Rooms in Buildings Next, in a 2022 survey by the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore, more than half of mothers stopped breastfeeding before their child turned one year old. The main reason cited was the challenges of expressing milk at work. Under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, lactation rooms are only required for buildings with a floor area of above 10,000 square meters – this is less than 10% of more than 4,000 offices and business parks. For the rest of the offices, it is left to employers to provide lactation rooms. This can be challenging, especially for SMEs. We can do more to help. Currently, there is an Accessibility Fund for building owners to upgrade their buildings or install a lactation pod. Can the Government do more to publicise the Accessibility Fund and urge people to apply for it? Can the Government also look into providing additional support for building owners to retrofit their buildings, with dedicated lactation rooms or install lactation pods? Support for More Lactation Rooms Finally, under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, accessible toilets for adults with disabilities or seniors must be present at a huge number of locations. However, under the same Code, there must only be one – at least one lactation room – only at limited areas.”
“Sir, last year, we celebrated the announcement of the extra two weeks of paternity leave. A year later, unfortunately, we are still waiting for these two weeks of paternity leave to be mandated. The sad reality is that – as reported in the media – some companies are waiting for the paternity leave to be mandated before they give it. Fathers are losing precious time with their babies – precious family time. We all wish this is not the case. We all hope that mindsets would have shifted, and paternity leave need not be made mandatory before companies give it. The Government must step in and ensure that we are indeed a Singapore made for families. Our policies and our firm commitment can help shape mindsets and change them more quickly. Can the Government provide a firm timeline on when the extra two weeks of paternity leave will be mandated? Increase and Equalise Parental Leave Next, Prime Minister Lee urged couples to add a little dragon in this Year of the Dragon. Our record-low fertility rate is an existential problem. We have been generous in giving parents bonuses, vouchers and tax rebates. But I hope we can give parents something even more valuable – time. Every year, I know I sound like a broken record asking for more parental leave, more childcare leave, more parent care leave, fertility leave and annual leave. But valuable time is important to many people. I sincerely hope the Government will consider providing parents with more parental leave – both maternity and paternity leave; and commit to a firm timeline to equalise both maternity and paternity leave. Can the Government also provide more incentives to companies to support them in giving their employees parental leave?”
“I am glad the voices of activists were heard, and Singapore will raise our climate targets and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It is an ambitious target but one that is very much needed. Can the Government share whether we are on track to reach this target? I am also glad that Singapore is leading efforts to combat climate change. At the World Climate Action Summit, Singapore led the charge on regional partnerships by announcing plans to raise S$6.6 billion to finance efforts to green the region. Part of these efforts include the Sustainability Action Package (SAP) for sharing expertise and best practices on sustainability and climate issues. Under the SAP, Singapore will work with partners from the public and private sectors, and non-profit and international organisations to build capacity. Will the Government ensure that we cast a broad net and enable more diverse actors to contribute, including from smaller organisations and civil society groups who have valuable expertise to contribute? In this spirit, will the Government also look into increasing access research funding for a greater variety of researchers to join the research efforts and this global fight? Climate Targets”
“I hope we can start by looking into (a) improving their dormitory standards sooner; (b) ensuring that they have safe catered food; and (c) treating kickbacks as corruption. The priority in this Budget and in our policies has to be Singaporeans. There is no doubt about that. But it does not mean that our migrant workers should be left out, left behind. To be the truly inclusive society we aspire to be, a shared future we talk about in this Budget must also include our migrant workers. To be a fair and just society, we cannot have one set of rules, guidelines and policies for Singaporeans and a different set for migrant workers. Sir, I promise Jannat I would look after her father. We should look after all our migrant workers. I do this not just because of a promise, but because it is the right thing to do. At the start of my speech, I talked about how our policies differentiate between "us" and "them". I have shared this quote in Parliament previously, and I will share it again, "There is no us and them, only us – one human family connected in ways we sometimes forget." I hope our policies can continue to change and recognise that our one human family in Singapore includes our migrant workers.”
“We also need to make sure we have the same or even stronger whistle-blower protection for informers of corruption for workers to report kickbacks. The Prevention of Corruption Act has strong protection for informers. No complaints can be admitted as evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings. No witness is permitted to disclose the name of informers or any information which may lead to the discovery of the informer. I propose that we introduce whistle-blower protection for informers who report kickbacks paid to employers. We all know the zero-tolerance approach Singapore takes to corruption. Kickbacks are corruption. There is no reason to treat kickbacks migrant workers pay any differently from other corruption in Singapore. Sir, migrant workers are the builders of our society – the builders of our economy. In the words of Minister Shanmugam, "These workers are here, they are helping us to make Singapore clean. They build our HDB flats. They build our buildings. They handle our waste management. They form the base of our economy and, therefore, they help us build our prosperity. You know, we say we have 57% of Singaporeans in PMET jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the base is built by foreigners. So, I think we have to appreciate what they do for us, and we have to have a better understanding and empathy." I am glad many Singaporeans have shown appreciation for the work migrant workers do for us. Our youths, like Kari, have been calling for our migrant workers to be better protected. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, "We need to do more to look out and care for the more vulnerable amongst us, including our migrant workers".”
“I have personally spoken with migrant workers whose employers coerced them into paying a sum of $3,000 in kickbacks. For some, this is more than four times their monthly salary. A crime had been committed against them. Yet, their hands were trembling as they spoke to me. They were fearful of the consequences of reporting their bosses. Many of these workers incur debt to work in Singapore in the first place. Losing their jobs may mean they have no way of repaying the loans they took to work in Singapore. One of them told me, "When I came to Singapore in 2016, I paid $14,000. In 2018, I paid $1,500 for my Work Permit. Now, they said that if I do not pay them $3,000, they will fire me". The worker faced the stark choice of paying his boss $3,000 to renew his Work Permit or face repatriation. The same worker told me, "I am a really poor man. I have no money to give them. In this situation, I am really helpless and feeling depressed. I am an honest and hardworking man." We can only start solving a problem by calling a spade a spade. This is one spade digging a grave for fairness and inclusiveness. What kickbacks really are is that they are corrupt gratification that employers coerce from vulnerable workers. The penalty for collecting kickbacks is a fine of up to $30,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years per charge. By contrast, the punishment of corruption is a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years per charge. We need to review the penalties for employment kickbacks to ensure that they are commensurate with the penalties for corruption. I propose that the maximum sentence be raised to five years of imprisonment and/or a $100,000 fine, matching the penalty for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
“By the time workers have their meal around noon time, the food is way past the four-hour timeframe. We know for a fact that our requirements are being breached. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) has said that in the past five years, SFA has not received any reported cases of catered food for workers in dormitories without a consume-by timestamp. MOM has also said that they have not received specific complaints from workers about not being able to consume food within a reasonable time of preparation. This is at odds with many workers' experiences and the realities on the ground. I know that MSE and SFA take food safety very seriously. I also know that MOM takes worker safety and welfare very seriously. My recommendation is that MOM and MSE work together to investigate this and set specific requirements to ensure that catered food is consumed within a safe period. Migrant workers deserve food that is safe for consumption, just like all Singaporeans. My third and final recommendation is that we recognise and treat kickbacks as a form of corruption. We should ensure that there are equivalent penalties and whistle-blowing protection. I have called for this in my previous Adjournment Motion and I am calling for it again. We know that from 2021 to 2023, MOM investigated 210 cases of kickbacks per year and took 70 employers to task each year. That is more than one employer every week being taken to task for collecting kickbacks. Also, we do not know what the full number of unreported cases is. Our laws to protect our workers are only as good as our ability to enforce our laws. We cannot enforce our laws if workers are fearful of reporting abuses when they happen.”
“This is a life and death issue when, not if, the next pandemic happens. We already know that the SAF was largely successful in keeping COVID-19 transmissions low. We already have a successful model to learn from – with a minimum standard of seven square metres per resident and all the measures that SAF took. All I am asking is that we learn from experience and urgently improve the living conditions of migrant workers. My second recommendation is that food catered for migrant workers is safe for consumption. Our migrant workers need a proper place to rest and proper food to eat. I am glad that MOM recently ensured that there are measures in place that protect catered food from contamination until it is collected by dormitory residents for consumption. MOM clearly takes food safety very seriously. But that solves only one part of the equation. The other parts need to be urgently addressed, too. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires that all catered food be consumed within four hours after it is prepared. SFA also requires that all catered food be labelled with a consume-by timestamp. Many Singaporeans will be familiar with these timestamps for catered food or buffets. This four-hour rule is strictly adhered to for food catered for Singaporeans. However, a different set of standard seems to apply for some migrant workers. Workers tell me that many of them are catered with food without a consume-by timestamp. Many workers tell me that they regularly consume food way past the four-hour timeframe. It is quite obvious that this is true. We know their catered lunch is cooked in the wee hours of the morning before workers even leave for work. We know the food is delivered to the dormitories early in the morning as well.”
“The pandemic taught us hard lessons about how diseases spread like wildfire when people are packed into tiny, cramped dormitory rooms. Yet, for the next 16 years, we are choosing to accept this risk. We are choosing to roll the dice and pray very hard that we will not have another pandemic in the next 16 years. It is a gamble with the lives of those living in the dormitories and it is a gamble with the lives of Singaporeans. I understand there is a cost factor. Business costs are rising and employers have financial constraints. We must consider this, too. MOM has said that dormitory standards cannot improve more quickly because beds are short in supply and rising in price. Surely, then, the way forward is to study and implement solutions that tackle those problems, rather than wait for them to go away. JTC used to own and manage dormitories directly. I am glad MOM will be building and owning two migrant-worker purpose-built dormitories (PBDs) through the new entity called NEST Singapore. Again, it is a step in the right direction. MOM has announced that the MOM-owned PBDs seek to promote innovations in public health resilience and liveability. They also aim to transform practices in migrant worker housing. Indeed, if the private market cannot efficiently deliver services at minimum standards and costs necessary for public health, we should ask the hard question of whether Government agencies should reassume the role of managing and operating more dormitories more urgently. By expanding the number of dormitories owned and run by MOM, there would be significant economies of scale and perhaps even lowered costs for employers. It could be a win-win solution for both employers and employees. Again, we must remember that this is a question of public health.”
“I ask that we be fair and inclusive – have one set of policies that apply to all. My first recommendation is that we ensure that the housing standards for dormitories are at least equivalent to the dormitory conditions for our full-time National Servicemen (NSFs). I am glad that MOM announced a set of improved standards for worker dormitories last year. It is a huge step in the right direction. By 2030, the dormitories must meet an interim set of housing standards. By 2040, the dormitories must meet the new standards. MOM said that these housing standards are meant to improve the dormitories' ability to contain disease outbreaks. I am glad that MOM is acting on lessons learnt during COVID-19. In addition to addressing the public health risks, it is also right that we make sure that our migrant workers have decent living conditions. However, many feel that the interim and new housing standards simply do not go far enough. Our current standards require at least 3.5 square metres per migrant worker. By contrast, each NSF in SAF gets seven square metres of sleeping and resting space. Why the double standards on this question of public health? Viruses will not discriminate between our migrant workers and our NSFs. We are now asking for dormitories to improve this from 3.5 square metres to 3.6 square metres per migrant worker by 2030 and 4.2 squares metres by 2040. We are asking for a 0.1-square-metre increase within seven years. To put things into perspective 0.1 square metre is less than the size of two A4 pieces of paper. Another example is the spacing between beds in migrant worker dormitories. Currently there is no requirement for spacing between beds. It is only in 2040 that we will mandate a spacing of one metre between the beds.”
“The least we can do is to take care of them and ensure that these workers have safe living spaces, safe food and safe avenues for reporting illegal employment practices. In a speech delivered at the height of COVID-19, Prime Minister Lee assured our workers, "To our migrant workers, let me emphasise again: we will care for you, just like we care for Singaporeans." I am glad we do care and, over the years, our policies on migrant workers have improved. In this Budget for Singaporeans, I hope we continue to make improvements and remember to care for our migrant workers. Many of our youths have set a shining example in caring and speaking up for migrant workers. I have been inspired by the passion of these youths. One such youth is Kari Chua. Kari co-founded the migrant worker ground up Sama Sama in 2016. Sama Sama and their partners support migrant community leaders to address mental health issues, enhance the quality of life and ensure equitable opportunities for migrant workers. Migrant worker NGOs like Sama Sama back up their calls with concrete actions through ground-up initiatives to support our migrant workers. Many Singaporeans like Kari are calling for the Government to do more to treat our migrant workers fairly. I hope we heed their call. I will raise three recommendations. First, we significantly improve the living standards for migrant workers. Second, we ensure the food catered for migrant workers comply with existing food safety standards. Third, we recognise and treat kickbacks as a form of corruption, by ensuring that there are equivalent penalties and whistleblowing protections. I am not asking for any preferential treatment for our migrant workers. I ask only that we treat our migrant workers the same way that we would want our loved ones to be treated.”
“Sir, this is a Budget about building our shared future together. A shared future that has been built on the work by all of us and our migrant workers over the past few decades. As we talk about being an inclusive society, we must not forget our migrant workers. Yet, our policies at times, show that there is an “us” and “them”. In the past eight years as an MP, I have seen firsthand the backbreaking work our migrant workers do for us. I have listened firsthand to the stories of the homes and families they left behind. And I have personally met the families they have left behind and felt the pain they feel every single day. Mazibur is a cleaner in Nee Soon East. I have known him for eight years. He came to Singapore in 2012, leaving his daughter Jannat when she was only 22 days' old. Mazibur has not returned to Bangladesh since. Jannat will turn 12 years old this year. He has missed all her birthdays and milestones growing up. When I went to Bangladesh a few years ago to meet all our Nee Soon East cleaners' families and have lunch with them, I met Jannat. It is sad that I got to meet Mazibur's daughter before he did. Jannat wrote to me and what she wrote tore through my heart. She said, "Take care of my father, I love him a lot". I promised her I would. Sir, Mazibur's story is not an uncommon one. Many low-wage migrant workers similarly endure long periods of separation from their families. As a father of three young girls, I just cannot imagine how painful and how difficult it must be to be so far from their loved ones. We enjoy time with our families in the homes that these migrant workers build and keep clean for us.”
“Sir, I thank the Second Minister for the reply. I think the Second Minister gave the number of teacher counsellors for all the schools. But could I just ask for part (b) of my question on what percentage of teachers in each school are teacher counsellors? Second, it is an important point that a lot of counsellors tell me that to be a counsellor, they require at least a Master's degree in counselling, because it is difficult work and requires specialised training. So, could I ask again whether we are setting our teachers up for failure by asking them to do even basic counselling work? The Second Minister mentioned maybe a one-day training; is there sufficient training for these teachers to be able to carry out this specialised work? Third, it really is also what I have been pushing for. The teachers are overworked. Is it really needed for them to do this extra work, or could the Ministry of Education (MOE) set aside some funding to hire more school counsellors who are able to help the students better and essentially help the teachers as well?”
“Can Minister clarify how the imprisonment term for section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) should be calibrated since the maximum imprisonment term is the same, but the culpability for offending under section 17F(5) is higher? Lastly, on the new investigation and enforcement powers given to IRAS. With the new powers, can I check what steps will be taken to ensure that IRAS is prepared for the extended scope of powers. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will allow the recovery of monies where grants are wrongly given, create offences for giving false or misleading information and allow the IRAS to exercise investigation and enforcement powers. I have three sets of clarifications to raise. My first clarification is on the recovery of wrongly given grant monies. The Bill introduces offences for obtaining grants or assisting another person to obtain grants by giving false or misleading information. The Bill also allows IRAS to impose a penalty equivalent to or three times of the amount that would have been given under the grant. Can Minister clarify that if multiple individuals are prosecuted in relation to a single grant, is it possible for IRAS to impose penalties on each offender? In other words, even though only a single grant is or would have been wrongly disbursed, is IRAS entitled to recover a penalty from each and every individual prosecuted? My second clarification is on the new offences for providing false or misleading information. Different offences are set out under section 17F(1), section 17F(3) and section 17F(5) depending on the state of the mind of the offender, for instance, whether the offending is carried out negligently or willfully with intent to obtain the grant. The penalties and punishment that can be imposed is of varying severity depending on the section the prosecution is brought under. To provide guidance on how prosecutorial discretion will be exercised, can Minister provide illustrations on when the different provisions will apply? The imprisonment term is three years for offences under section 17F(3) for negligently providing false information and section 17F(5) for providing false information willfully with intent.”
“Sorry, Sir. I have a second question on whether MHA will provide reasons for rejection as well if these applications are rejected.”
“Sir, could I ask exactly how many individuals have criminal records of conviction under section 377A that have not been considered spent? Second, if these people do apply for these records to be considered spent and are rejected, can I confirm whether the Police will provide reasons for the rejection?”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think that looking at the data that was presented, it looks like there is an increasing number of caseloads, but a similar number of social workers. Could I ask the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) whether they feel that there are sufficient social workers at this point, and if there is a shortfall, what are the plans to increase the number of social workers?”
“Thank you, Sir. I think I have been asking this repeatedly because, in this House, we keep saying that we are reducing the workload of teachers. But then again, on the other hand, I hear that we are now asking them to do the counselling work, to help the school counsellors because there is a shortage of school counsellors. Then now, we are asking them to be wellness ambassadors as well to help provide a listening ear to their fellow colleagues. So, I sincerely hope again, we can make sure that teachers can focus on teaching rather than adding on additional workload to our teachers.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the reply. Could I ask whether for the number of hours that teachers have spent on administrative work, are we seeing a decreasing trend? Second, whether MOE is considering reducing the amount of, again, non-administrative work for teachers, in terms of adding on work for counselling work for the students and even being well-being ambassadors for fellow teachers.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I ask whether the Ministry is looking at whether there is an increasing trend of people going to the private AR centres to do their treatment? Second, I asked this before as well, but it is a brand new year. So, if I could ask whether the review of extending the subsidies to those undergoing ART treatment at the private clinics has been considered and whether a decision has been made on that.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary again for the reply. I think we have agreed that 40 is too high. My concern is that more CPOs have contacted me to say they have a higher caseload than 40 and that is what is worrying. I know they are not doing this for money, but I think salary it is an important factor. Could I ask, at least, whether the median and mean salaries of the starting salaries of our new CPOs have increased over the last few years? Again, whether there is a concrete plan to increase the manpower at our Child Protective Service (CPS)?”
“Thank you, Sir. The Parliamentary Question is to ask for the mean and median salaries of our CPOs for each year, for the past five years. I would be grateful if we can have the data so that we could see whether there is an increase in the salaries of our officers over the last few years. Second, I understand there is a review on the administrative workload of our CPOs. So, could I ask when that review is expected to be completed? Third, if I may, Sir, I know Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has been doing his level best to try and support and help our CPOs, but could I ask again on the manpower issue and, perhaps, in the last few months, how many new CPOs have we hired?”
“Sir, this Bill will help Singapore comply with FATF requirements on assessing the risk of proliferation financing and taking measures to mitigate these risks. I have two short clarifications to raise. My first clarification is on the Government’s approach on prevention of proliferation financing, anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing. Each of these areas represent risks which threaten the integrity of Singapore’s financial institutions. Each of these areas also have their own sets of safeguards and requirements. Singapore has a national strategy for countering terrorism financing related activities. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if proliferation financing will be incorporated into this strategy? Can the Minister share how the Government is incorporating these safeguards as a coherent approach to prevent fragmentation in the implementation of the financial safeguards for proliferation financing, money laundering and terrorism financing? My second clarification is on ensuring effective implementation of these safeguards on the ground. Robust safeguards are important due to the seriousness of the threat posed by proliferation financing. However, overly strict safeguards can be counter-productive if entities do not have the capacity to ensure meaningful compliance with these safeguards. What steps will be taken at the industry level to avoid these safeguards from becoming a box-checking exercise? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“To ensure that equally stringent standards continue to apply to halal food sold in Singapore, can Minister share what are the considerations for deciding whether to grant recognition to a foreign halal certification body? Given that the halal certification is happening overseas, what special steps will MUIS take to ensure that the standards hold up to local halal certification standards? My third clarification is on the oversight of Muslim religious schools. The new section 86A inserts a definition of "Muslim religious school". The Majlis are empowered to set rules on these schools, including on how they provide Islamic instruction "online or remotely through electronic means." The Majlis may also make rules for the oversight of Muslim religious schools including the powers to inspect, to obtain information, to gain access to any computer or online account, and to examine any record. In a situation where Islamic instruction is provided in virtual meeting rooms and the virtual meeting room is hosted on a remote server outside of Singapore, can Minister clarify how these oversight and inspection provisions will apply? Notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will allow foreign halal certification bodies to be recognised, give the MUIS Legal Committee more discretion to consider a fatwa request and strengthen the administration of Muslim religious schools. I thank the Ministry for holding a public consultation in preparation for this Bill. I have three clarifications to raise. My first clarification is on the Legal Committee’s process for considering a request and preparing a ruling. The new section 32(3) requires the Legal Committee to consider every request for a ruling unless the request is frivolous. Section 32(3A) provides that the Legal Committee may prepare a ruling on the request if it is appropriate or necessary. Can the Minister clarify the procedure and timelines for the Legal Committee to consider a request and to prepare a ruling? I have seen resident cases where these rulings are required for Court application. In one case, the request was submitted in August 2023. The resident was informed that the Legal Committee may take one or two years to provide an opinion. The resident was informed that this is because of the volume of requests that the Legal Committee has to handle. Can the Minister share if the Legal Committee are expected to prepare their ruling based on any standards of timeliness? If so, what are these standards? Are there any plans to review the workload of the Legal Committee and the functioning of the Legal Committee to see how such requests can be more effectively managed? My second clarification is on the recognition of foreign halal certification bodies. MUIS’ halal certification is well known and trusted.”
“If not, what are the differences? Can the Minister also clarify whether there is any limit to the number of periods for which the court can remand an offender in custody under sections 304A(3) and 304B(5)? The maximum length of each period is clearly circumscribed – one month for SPP and two months for SEPP – to enshrine some fairness in the process. But the number of periods does not seem constrained by the same safeguard. This opens the possibility that an offender gets remanded indefinitely while the entity preparing the report – the Commissioner of Prisoners for SPP and the psychiatrist for SEPP – fails to submit it in a timely fashion. My third set of clarifications is on provisions for offenders subject to SPP and SEPP. Can the Minister share what resources or programmes will be provided to rehabilitate offenders on SPP or SEPP? What steps will be taken to mitigate the risk that being put on SPP or SEPP may signal that the offender is beyond rehabilitation? Can the Minister share if any frameworks will be introduced for the assessment by experts, review by Minister, and representations by the offender, at the end of the SEPP minimum period? Finally, can the Minister share what alternative measures the Government considered in place of the SPP and SEPP and what factors did they take into account when deciding on this approach? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will expand the range of sentencing options for serious crimes and improve the criminal court processes. I have three sets of clarifications on the changes to the criminal case disclosure process and on the SPP and SEPP. My first set of clarifications is on the changes to the criminal case disclosure process. Under the Bill, where a documentary exhibit in a case for the prosecution includes an image of an individual's genital or anal region, or a woman's breasts, the prosecution is not required to serve the exhibit on the Defence. Instead, upon the Defence's request, the prosecution must arrange for the defence to view the exhibit at a Police station or a prescribed place. The photograph may be just one of many pages in a long documentary exhibit. In such a situation, can the Minister clarify if it is open to the prosecution to serve a redacted form of the exhibit containing the image where the image is omitted? The Defence then only has to arrange to view the unredacted image in the exhibit at the Police station or prescribed place. This may be a more proportionate approach where the Defence has a set of the rest of the documentary exhibit. Additionally, the new section 221B(1) requires the Prosecution to serve on the defence the statement of any material witness that relates to the charges. Can the Minister clarify what is considered a “material” witness? My second set of clarifications is on how an offender’s suitability for SPP and SEPP will be assessed. On the SPP, can the Minister share what other factors, apart from physical and mental conditions, will be taken into consideration when assessing an offender’s suitability for the SPP? Can the Minister share if the factors for assessing an offender’s suitability for the SPP and SEPP are identical?”
“Sir, can I just ask about the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs)? I think various sectors have just released their refreshed ITMs 2025. Could I ask whether MSE is monitoring these ITMs to make sure they are aligned with our goals of reaching net-zero emissions by 2025, and also whether they are now consistent with the COP28 consensus that the Minister just talked about?”
“It is even more important to ensure that parents have accurate, scientific information to help them make emotionally-charged decisions on foetal viability. My second set of clarifications is on the naming of the stillborn child. MHA has clarified that pending the new provisions being operationalised, parents who wish to name their stillborn child may apply for a commemorative birth certificate. Can the Minister of State share if parents, whose stillborn are birthed in this transition period before the provisions are operationalised, can apply for their stillborn child to be named once the provisions come into effect? Can the Minister of State also confirm that steps will be taken to ensure that the application process for entering a name for the stillborn will be sensitively designed and easy for parents to navigate? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill proposes amendments that will allow parents of a stillborn child to officially register a name for the child within one year after the stillbirth. This is an empathetic move that gives due acknowledgment to the lived, personal experiences of Singaporeans who have had the misfortune of losing their child. I thank the Government for making these positive changes. I have two points of clarifications. My first clarification is on the concern of misinterpretation of the stillborn threshold in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. Minister of State Sun Xueling had earlier shared the rationale provided for increasing the threshold from the 22nd to 24th week of pregnancy is to address feedback from the medical community on potential misinterpretation of the threshold. The feedback was that the stillborn threshold may be misinterpreted as an indication of foetal viability. This may confuse parents making difficult decisions about medical interventions for their unborn children. Additionally, there were concerns expressed that such ambiguities lead to pressure on medical practitioners to use treatment methods that may increase the risk of severe neurodevelopmental disabilities in infants who survive or in higher rates of futile resuscitation attempts. If there is, in fact, a significant risk of confusion about foetal viability, beyond increasing the threshold, can the Minister of State share if the Government is looking into other steps to ensure that parents have proper information relevant to foetal viability outside the womb? Increasing the threshold is one way to remove potentially confusing information. But it will not fully solve the problem.”
“It also extends to any transaction where voting power is acquired. The broad powers in this part of the Bill mean that such transactions may be unwound within two years after they are concluded. MTI has said that the Bill is designed to be business-friendly. However, these broad powers may increase costs and slow down business activity by requiring additional due diligence and monitoring of investments after a transaction has closed. Can the Minister share the findings of its consultations with businesses on the impact of these provisions and how the Government intends to mitigate the impact on businesses? My last clarification is on the role and powers of the Reviewing Tribunal. As the scope of judicial review is limited by section 46, the Reviewing Tribunal substantively performs the function of the Supreme Court in reviewing the Minister's powers under this Bill. The proceedings of a Reviewing Tribunal are deemed to be judicial proceedings. Can the Minister confirm that the Reviewing Tribunal will apply consistent standards of judicial review as the Singapore Courts, with reference to the applicable case precedents? Due to national security reasons also, appellants may not be provided with full information regarding the decision being appealed. Can the Minister confirm that the Reviewing Tribunal will be separately provided with all information, even information not given to the appellant, to make their decision? Lastly, will the Reviewing Tribunal be allowed to take into account the potentially incomplete information provided to the appellant, in deciding each case? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”