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 6 of 37.
“Sir, this Bill will create an oversight framework for entities critical to our national security interests. I have three points of clarification. My first set of clarifications, is on the notification and approval regime for notification and approval regime for controllers of designated entities. Under section 16, a person's shareholdings are combined with their associates' shareholdings to determine if notice or approval requirements are triggered. The definition of associate, under section 15, is very wide. It can include even a person's employers, employees and colleagues. Can the Minister share how the monitoring of the shareholding of associates may be carried out in practice by individuals? If there is any contravention of notices or approval requirements, the burden is on the accused to prove that they were not aware of the contravention. Can Minister also provide examples of what an accused will need to show to prove that they were not aware of the contravention? My other clarification on this topic, is on a difference in the defences available for contravening certain notices requirements. Section 18(5) requires the accused to notify the Minister within seven days of contravening a notice requirement. Section 19(12)(c) only requires the accused to take "all reasonable steps" to notify the Minister within seven days of contravening a separate notice requirement. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for making it is easier to avail to the defence in section 19? My second clarification is on the Minister's power to issue a review notice against an entity that has acted against our national security interests. This power extends beyond designated entities, to any entity formed in or carrying business in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Sir. If I could go back just to the issue of sand again. I understand that with the sand imports, we are reliant on compliance with the local laws, but I think the concern is that the local laws might not be as strong as we hope for them to be. And so, the call is for our own responsible sourcing framework, and for this framework to be made public as well, so that we are assured that the import of the sand will not affect the social and environmental conditions in other countries.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. I think there is particular concern about the source of the sand that we are using for this project. The Minister has clarified some of the questions about this earlier. But could I ask, one, whether we have a list of countries where we are hoping to import sand from; and two, whether we will have a responsible sourcing framework to evaluate the social and environmental impact of the imported sand?”
“The licensee is also required to make reasonable security arrangements to protect the information, including information in a credit report. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how these safeguards are extended to information provided to other third parties, such as assistants, contractors or agents? What steps will a licensee have to take to ensure that the information provided to third parties is kept secured, not used for other purposes and properly disposed of? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“However, section 66A(7) provides that a licensee is not required to seek the surety's consent before requesting a credit report on them. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify why a licensee must inform an applicant that it is submitting the applicant's information to MLCB to obtain a credit report and that the information may be disclosed to other parties, but it does not have to inform a surety when the surety's information is actually submitted to obtain a credit report? My third and final clarification is on the safeguards for borrower information disclosed. Under the new section 69(3A), a licensee may disclose borrower information, including information in a credit report to certain third parties. These third parties include an assistant of the licensee to collect debt, a contractor or agent to maintain the information system and any public agency to obtain any public record. Additionally, the licensee can disclose information to MLCB and any prescribed persons for purposes related to the welfare and protection of applicants. Firstly, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what it considers to be purposes "related to the welfare and protection of applicants"? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also share who the prescribed persons are intended to be? Secondly, there are requirements on how long a licensee can retain information and on safeguards that a licensee must have to protect information. A licensee must dispose of a credit report five years after the date the loan is fully repaid or the contract is terminated. If the loan is not granted, the credit report must be disposed of within one business day that MLCB is informed of the reasons for declining the loan.”
“Madam, this Bill will allow licensed moneylenders access to relevant credit information before deciding to grant a loan. The Bill will also require licensed moneylenders to take additional steps to protect information and records kept. These amendments will support the MLCB's work in encouraging financially prudent borrowing. I have three points of clarification. My first clarification is on a licensee's discretion to obtain a credit report on a surety of the application before deciding whether to grant a loan. The new section 66A(4) permits but does not require a licensee to obtain a credit report on a surety. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if any guidance will be provided to a licensee on situations where a licensee is recommended to obtain a credit report on a surety? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how it will ensure that licensees do not request credit reports for purposes other than to assess the creditworthiness of a surety? I understand licensees face a fine or imprisonment for misrepresenting the purpose of a credit pull. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain how such misrepresentations will be detected and policed? After all, when licensees make credit pulls, they are not obligated to inform those targeted about it. My second clarification is on providing notice to the surety if the surety's information is submitted to MLCB or other parties. There is a requirement under section 66(4)(b) that the licensee must inform the applicant in writing that certain information from the applicant will be submitted to MLCB to obtain a credit report. The licensee must also inform the applicant that the information may be disclosed to other parties.”
“A short supplementary question but that was a much longer reply though. Again, I think there has to be some arbitrary number as to how many cases a CPO can take. This is actually a much larger number of caseload than for a social worker, for example. So, I hope we can set some benchmark in terms of the number of cases an officer can take and also have some target numbers in terms of the number of officers we need.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very short reply. I understand the caseload currently is at an average of 40 cases for each CPO, which is quite a lot, considering there are really difficult cases. So, could I ask whether Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has an ideal number of cases for the caseload of a CPO? Secondly, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that they are planning to increase the numbers. Could I check what the target number of CPOs is?”
“Thank you, Sir. I am asking this on behalf of Dr Tan Wu Meng and, of course, on behalf of his Clementi residents also. He reminded me to say that. Dr Tan had a resident who had a community cat which was taken away by another resident who was not from Clementi. Dr Tan was wanting to ask whether there is any recourse or approach to be taken when there is a community cat which is known to the community, but there are no official owners and there are eyewitnesses sharing that the cat was being taken away and there are concerns about this and the cat appears to be distressed as well.”
“Sir, just one more quick question. It is back to the subsidies again because I do think it is important. Could I just ask whether MOH has done a cost benefit analysis? I know I am always asking Government to spend more, but perhaps, if we spend more in getting people to do their fertility screening at a younger age, we might then spend less in providing subsidies for IVF treatment, which is even more expensive and which costs the Government quite a fair bit currently.”
“Thank you, Sir. And I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think there was a recent report which showed that Singaporeans, in general, spend about 3.4 years of trying to conceive before finally getting help when they cannot. And we know as well that the trend is that Singaporeans are getting married later in life. So, time is of the essence here. Could I ask: one, whether MOH is looking into how to create more awareness about the importance and the need for fertility testing at a younger age; and two, I really think that price might be a factor and so I am hoping that subsidies can be extended to all, rather than a selective few?”
“The effect of increasing the practice training period to one year is that practice trainees will earn a lower salary for a longer period. While the media has reported that some law firms are looking to increase practice trainee salaries, relying on individual law firms' review of practice trainees will likely lead to unequal and inequitable outcomes across the board. Can the Senior Minister of State share what steps will be taken across the board to review practice trainee salaries? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“The omission is odd because the Bill's explanatory statement says that a moratorium is meant to be two-prong: it bars law students from making applications and it bars law practices from making offers. It seems inconsistent and unfair to punish only the student if the law firm wittingly makes an offer in breach of the moratorium date. Finally, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how the SILE detects breaches of the moratorium? The Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers themselves noted in their recommendation that breaches would be hard to detect. Will there be audits or reporting obligations that enable more effective policing of the moratorium? My second clarification is on the exposure of practice trainees to contrasting practice areas. One reason the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (CPTL) recommended increasing the practice training period to one year was to allow practice trainees more meaningful exposures to contrasting practice areas. However, small law firms may not be able to provide such exposure, given that their firm's work may be more narrow. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what efforts will be made to ensure that even practice trainees in small law firms can have meaningful exposure to different practice areas? My third and final clarification is on the salary of practice trainees that many Members have raised. Practice trainees usually receive salaries that are significantly lower than what they would earn as a fully qualified lawyer. For example, it is reported that the Big Four law firms in Singapore pay trainees an honorarium of around $2,000 to $2,500 while their first-year associates now get $7,500 to $7,900.”
“Sir, this Bill will strengthen the training of law graduates and better equip them to enter the legal profession. Key amendments introduced include decoupling admission to the Singapore bar from practice training, increasing the practice training period, allowing limited rights to practise after six months’ training and introducing a moratorium for practice training contract applications. I have three clarifications to raise. My first set of clarifications relate to the moratorium date on applications for training contracts. The Bill empowers the SILE to disregard any period in calculating the training period completed by a practice trainee. The explanatory statement clarifies that this may include any contravention of the moratorium date on applications for training contracts. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how any breach of the moratorium date will be factored into calculating the training period completed? For instance, will SILE discount the training period completed by the same amount of time that the practice trainee and law firm breached the moratorium? Would SILE consider certain factors as aggravating or mitigating in this calculation? And are there other penalties that practice trainees would face, apart from the discounting of the training period? Second, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether law firms may face any penalties if they offer practice training contracts in breach of a law student’s moratorium? It does not appear that this Bill provides for such penalties. If that is the case, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain the rationale behind such an omission?”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank Senior Minister of State for the reply. I understand that we had to move quickly in terms of public safety, but could I ask whether the framework that the Senior Minister of State has just shared in this House can be put through a consultation with all the animal welfare groups and nature groups, the youth leaders that he talked about, so that there can be consensus in how we move forward in future cases where there are human-wildlife conflict again?”
“Is there any risk that this would adversely affect the accounts of a deceased member or payouts to their nominees? CPF can appear complex to Singaporeans and making sure the rules are clear to Singaporeans will give them greater confidence in the system. My third and final clarification is on the adjustment to CPF interest rates. We are in an environment of rising interest rates. Many Singaporeans save in and even voluntarily top up their CPF, knowing it is a safe vehicle for their retirement savings with an attractive interest rate. However, this year we saw the pegged rate for the Special and MediSave accounts go above the floor rate. Various savings and investment products are also advertising rates above the Ordinary Account interest rate. Singaporeans may thus want to chase higher interest rates and through riskier products. Can the Minister elaborate on the Government's approach to adjusting the interest rate? Will the rates be reviewed in the near future so that our ageing population can have a larger retirement nest egg? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill updates the CPF rules to limit the CPF scheme to only SCs and PRs. The Bill also updates rules relating to the death of a CPF member. CPF is one of Singapore's unique features. CPF plays an important role in our social stability by helping Singaporeans have a strong retirement nest egg set aside to age gracefully. I support this Bill as it represents a continued focus on this purpose. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first clarification is how we ensure that new citizens or PRs will have sufficient amounts set aside for their retirement. The changes in this Bill reinforce that CPF is meant for the retirement needs of Singaporeans and PRs. However, Singapore remains an open economy. There are people who continue to take up citizenship or PR status. At the point that they take up citizenship or PR status, they may not have any CPF savings. Depending on their age, they may not have the time to build up their retirement reserves. If new citizens and PRs do not have sufficient retirement reserves, they too will have to rely on public infrastructure in their retirement years. How does the Government ensure that any new citizens and PRs have sufficient savings to be self-reliant in their retirement years? My second clarification is on the change of timing when making computations for deceased members. The Bill changes this from the actual time of death to the time CPF is notified. Can the Minister elaborate what practical effect these changes will have for Singaporeans? The CPF website states that there is no need for Singaporeans to notify the CPF Board. Can Singaporeans assume that notifications are made automatically to the CPF Board on the same day a death is reported?”
“As we look to grow Singapore's presence as a regional or even global philanthropic hub, will the Government consider what other tax measures can be used to encourage different forms of giving to local, regional and international causes? For instance, can we look into how tax incentives can support individuals who wish to contribute to regional humanitarian causes? Helping to alleviate humanitarian crises contributes to regional stability, which in turn benefits Singapore as a country dependent on stable relations and predictable relations with her neighbours. So, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“I know the reply will be that we do provide support to single unwed parents and the Senior Minister of State might list the range of support provided. I agree that some support is there but this push for providing the WMCR is also about being fair and being inclusive. It is about making sure single unwed parents do not feel discriminated against. Single unwed parents have written to me, come to my Meet-the-People Session and speak to me during my home visits. I hear them, I feel the stigma they face and the discrimination they endure daily. One single unwed parent wrote to me with regard to the WMCR and said, "Why the unfair treatment and discrimination for single mothers?" and "Many grievances ever since my baby was born and I am ashamed to be a Singapore citizen who is left out in the system." Let me stress that the appeal here, like the appeal to provide the single unwed parents with the cash component of the baby bonus and the parenthood tax rebate, is not about providing single unwed parents with more support. The appeal is that they be treated equally and be provided with the WMCR like how it is provided to married, divorced and widowed working mothers. My second point is on growing Singapore as a philanthropic hub. The pilot tax incentive introduced by the Bill offers family offices a 100% tax deduction for overseas donations. I applaud the move to take an international perspective in growing Singapore's philanthropic work. However, this should not be limited to the top tiers of society. Philanthropic giving should be encouraged across the whole of society. However, the 80:20 fund-raising rule still requires 80% of funds raised for foreign charitable purposes to be applied towards charitable purposes in Singapore.”
“Sir, this Bill gives effect to the measures announced during this year's Budget Statement. The amendments will encourage businesses to engage in R&D, and develop their capabilities through the EIS. Through tax incentives, they will also encourage family offices in Singapore to base their philanthropic operations in Singapore. The amendments also change the WMCR from a percentage of earned income to a fixed dollar tax relief. I have two points of clarification to raise. My first point is about the WMCR. I have spoken up many times pushing to extend the WMCR to single unwed parents who are parents too and should not be discriminated against. I understand that the WMCR is to "encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children". This is what is stated on the IRAS website, but it is not accurate as the relief is provided for divorcees too, rightly so. But again, why are single unwed parents left out? There is actually a loophole here. A giant loophole. To be clear, single unwed parents can get the relief if they just marry the father of the child and then file for a divorce. They then qualify for the WMCR. But why make them jump through so many hoops to get something they should get in the first place? We want to encourage mothers to return to the workforce, but why not encourage single unwed mothers to return to the workforce too? For single unwed mothers who do return to the workforce despite the absolutely difficult circumstances they are in, should we not support them and provide them with the WMCR? This policy is not cast in stone and we are amending it now to provide more Government support for eligible lower- to middle-income working mothers. We should provide support to single unwed mothers too.”
“In our national pledge, we pledge to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. On the issue of the cash component of the Baby Bonus and the Working Mother’s Child Relief and Parenthood Tax Rebate, we are doing the single unwed parents an injustice, an inequality. I am not asking for single unwed parents to have more; only that they have equal to what any other parent is entitled to. I hope we can review our policy and start by providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“This is also an issue of fairness. This is not about incentivising or disincentivising any behaviours. What exactly is the policy objective of not providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents? Seventeen years ago, Minister Indranee who was a backbencher in this House said, “The third group of people who do not really feel included are the single unwed mothers who are not allowed to rent Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. I do strongly feel that this is an outdated policy. I have spoken on this before, and I understand that the rationale is that the Ministry of National Development (MND) does not want to encourage them to have babies out of wedlock. But if this is the policy objective, it is not working, because there are many children born out of wedlock. As I have said before, the availability of rental flats is not something that the couple have in mind when they engage in the activity that results in the child. That is the last thought on their minds.” I am quite sure that before the couple have sex, they similarly do not think about the cash component of the Baby Bonus. I am quite sure we all agree they do not. We have progressed and changed our outdated policy of not allowing single unwed parents to rent HDB flats. It is time to also change this outdated policy of not providing single unwed parents with the cash component of the Baby Bonus. President Tharman Shanmugaratnam said in 2013 that single unwed mothers need more help than others, including in the area of financial assistance. He said, “We’re all in this together and the Government will do its part.” It has been 10 years since his speech. The Government has, indeed, done more for single unwed parents, but it can do even more.”
“She said: "I feel the horrible lack of childcare leave days in Singapore has resulted in parents sending their sick kids to school, which in turn increases the infection rates and causes kids to fall sick easily. I have personally heard colleagues and friends saying that they send their kids to school as long as they don’t have a fever because they just have no choice due to the number of leave days. As a parent who tries her best to keep her child at home till he recovers, this is very frustrating because my child falls sick again a few days after returning to school." This teacher ended her email by saying that, “Although I am passionate about teaching and impacting the lives of the younger ones, such experiences leave me thinking that I should leave the service, which is a waste.” Her story is not unusual. If we are to be a Singapore Made for Families, will the Government consider providing childcare sick leave on a per-child basis for all Singaporeans? This is no different from what we are already doing for civil servants. My final point is on a group of parents who are often overlooked and discriminated against – single unwed parents. I am glad we have previously amended this Act, the Child Development Co-Savings Act, to provide more support for single unwed parents, including providing the CDA component of the Baby Bonus. I hope we can now provide them the cash component of the Baby Bonus. I know this is not part of the Bill today, but it really should be. This money is not a luxury but a lifeline for so many single unwed parents. Since 2016, I have spoken up nine times for extending the Working Mother’s Child Relief, the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents. This will be my 10th time raising this.”
“I fully understand this is not a one-year, two-year, or even three-year road map. Our four weeks of paternity leave will take time to catch up with the 16 weeks of maternity leave. I agree with Minister Indranee Rajah who said that the two parts of the equation are fathers taking up paternity leave and employers being supportive of fathers going on paternity leave. Our employers will need time to adjust to equalising paternity leave. Let us help our employers by providing them with the roadmap they need for business certainty. We should also remember that an Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) study highlighted that our policies signal that childcare is a woman’s responsibility and reinforces gender stereotypes. Equalising parental leave is a step forward towards reducing these gender stereotypes and I hope the Government will seriously consider this. Next, I am heartened that as part of the Made for Families initiative, the Government is providing more support for families by increasing unpaid infant care leave. In the same spirit, I hope we can consider including introducing childcare sick leave for all Singaporeans. This, I have raised many times as well and I wish it was part of this Bill. Civil servants already have childcare sick leave. Other Singaporean families should have this too. Childcare sick leave is a necessity. It is important for the health of our children and for families. Recently, a teacher emailed me to share her struggles with her child who is constantly falling ill. She told me that her child is always falling sick and had already been hospitalised twice for pneumonia and acute bronchitis. She told me that the number of childcare leave is really not enough.”
“Sir, I am glad we have introduced this Bill today which includes many things so many of us have been fighting for, for so many years now. The increase in paternity leave is very much welcomed. It is something very close to my heart and this change sends a strong signal about the important role that fathers play. It also signals that the Government is listening, listening to concerns on the ground and listening to our repeated questions in this House on these important issues, although we sometimes get the same repeated replies. But this Bill also does not include many things that so many of us are still fighting for and I hope that changes will be made as we move towards a more inclusive society and a Singapore Made for Families. I have three points of clarification. My first point is on equalising parental leave. This is a point I have raised repeatedly and will raise again and again, because it is an important point. Just last year, Minister Josephine Teo spoke about whether equalising parental leave would better reflect the desire for equal sharing of responsibilities. She said, “Questions like these should not be forgotten. Every now and then, we should revisit them. And even if we do not, Mr Louis Ng will make sure that we do.” We should revisit this every now and then. I raised this earlier this year and will raise it again now. I am glad we have doubled paternity leave. But can go further to eventually equalise parental leave. I am heartened that Minister Indranee Rajah has said that the Government will continue to work with the tripartite partners to review the scope for more parental leave provisions. Can the Government work with tripartite partners to come up with a roadmap to equalise parental leave?”
“Can Minister clarify whether individuals who are subject to decisions on removal from Singapore, and entry and re-entry permits can seek ICA’s reconsideration? If yes, what is the process for seeking ICA’s reconsideration? My second point is on the variation of conditions of entry permits. The new subsection 4A of section 10 states that the Controller may publish any changes to conditions on a prescribed website or in the Gazette instead of giving notice to individuals if the Controller assesses that it is not practicable to give notice to every individual. Given that entry conditions are important for the legality of stay in Singapore, can Minister share when it would not be practicable to give notice to every individual? How will individuals with no knowledge of prescribed websites and no habit of reading the Gazette learn about the variation of conditions of their entry permits? My third and final point is about how children will be prevented from being taken out of Singapore. A new section 5AA states that an immigration officer may prevent a child from leaving Singapore or being taken out of Singapore. In doing so, the immigration officer may keep the child in an authorised area. This can be a traumatising situation for a child. We must ensure that there are robust standards for ensuring the well-being of the child. Can Minister share what requirements it will set to ensure that facilities in the authorised area are appropriate for keeping a child? By what standards will immigration officers be held to ensure that they handle a child appropriately? Can Minister also share whether there is any limit to how long a child may be kept in the authorised area? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will strengthen border security by digitalising immigration processes, allowing faster responses to pandemics and other challenges, strengthening controls against undesirable persons and allowing efficient administration of passes and permits to foreigners and PRs. I have three points of clarification. My first point is on the right of appeal. The Bill removes the statutory right of appeal against certain decisions. The Bill will remove the right of appeal on the grant and revocation of PR status. MHA has clarified that PR applicants and PRs can still seek ICA’s reconsideration. ICA’s website appears to provide no information on how to request for such reconsideration. Can Minister clarify by what channels should PR applicants and PRs request ICA’s reconsideration of its decisions? What should such requesters provide and how long should they expect to wait for a response? Will ICA consider providing a standard form for filing such requests? It would centralise ICA’s intake of requests and reduce administrative complexity. This form could also provide information about factors relevant to ICA’s reconsideration and warn against the inclusion of irrelevant documents and submission of frivolous requests. This would likely cut the time taken to review requests and reduce the volume of requests, saving Government resources. Additionally, the Bill removes rights of appeal against other decisions such as the removal of persons unlawfully remaining in Singapore and entry and re-entry permits. For this category of decisions, MHA has not stated that these individuals can seek ICA’s reconsideration of its decisions.”
“Can the Minister of State confirm that appropriate public consultations will be carried out before any modifications are carried out to the Code of Conduct and Schedules? Understanding the timeline for potential revisions will help stakeholders anticipate adjustments and plan accordingly. My third and final point is on the scope of premises that are covered. The First and Second Schedules can be amended to vary the scope of qualifying leases covered by the Act. In addition to this, section 32 allows the Minister to exempt any person or premises from the scope of the Act by order in the Gazette. The general power to exempt by order in the Gazette is less likely to attract scrutiny than amending the Schedules. Can the Minister of State share under what circumstances might the Minister exercise its power to exempt specific persons or premises under section 32 instead of amending the Schedules? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will introduce a framework to facilitate fairer negotiations between landlords and tenants in retail. The Bill will mandate compliance with a Code of Conduct for certain retail leases. The Code was first released by FTIC in 2021. This Bill takes the important step of codifying the Code. I have three clarifications on the Bill. My first point is on the effect of non-compliance with the Code of Conduct. The Bill will require qualifying retail leases to comply with the Code and 13 leasing principles under the Code. Can the Minister of State clarify if non-compliance with the leasing principles that is not a permitted deviation will mean that the non-compliant term is void? Can the Minister of State also clarify if there are any situations where non-compliance with the leasing principles that is not a permitted deviation will void the entire lease? These clarifications will help parties clearly understand the legal consequences of non-compliance. In situations where a non-compliant term or the entire lease is void, can the Minister of State clarify how the Court should determine what sums are due to parties? My second point is on modifications to the Codes and the Schedules. The requirements that qualifying retail leases must comply with will be set out under the Codes. It is significant that requirements are set out in the Codes that can be modified by the Committee with the Minister's consent. The modifications do not require approval of Parliament. While there should be flexibility, transparency and certainty for businesses are also important. Can the Minister of State share how frequently the Code of Conduct will be modified? Can the Minister of State also elaborate on the criteria and considerations for modifying the Code of Conduct?”
“What are the types of other measures that an authorised officer may take if there is non-compliance? My final point is on water efficiency requirements. Section 40 of the amendments introduces water efficiency requirements for new facilities built for business purposes that require water. I understand that there are presently existing best practice guidelines published for certain industries. Can the Senior Minister of State share if further changes will be made to the current best practices guidelines for these industries? Will guidelines be introduced for more industries as well? Can the Senior Minister of State also share whether the water efficiency requirements take into account the present technology that is available to maintain water efficiency? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will improve water efficiency requirements, increase PUB’s administrative effectiveness and ensure consistent application of taxes to private suppliers. I have three clarifications to raise. My first point is on the WBT. Section 20(4)(g) allows the Minister to impose different amounts of WBT for persons "differently situated". It lists situations where a different WBT can be imposed. The explanatory statement states that this amendment is to allow finer calibration to the circumstances where WBT is imposed and the amount of WBT imposed. Can the Senior Minister of State share specifically what changes to the imposition and calibration of WBT are envisaged? Can the Senior Minister of State also share if the list is intended to be exhaustive? If the list is not exhaustive, will PUB make clear the basis for imposing differentiated WBT? My second point is on PUB's power on the relocation of any water installation. The new section 26 sets out PUB's powers on the water installations. In granting approval for a water installation, PUB is allowed to impose a condition requiring ownership of any water installation to be transferred to PUB. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if PUB will make payment to a person who transfers ownership of a water installation to PUB? If so, how will the quantum of payment be determined? Next, section 26(10) allows an authorised officer to enter the premises and carry out works or take any measures if a person fails to comply with a notice. Given the intrusiveness of these powers, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that reasonable time will be given for a person to comply with the notice? Can the Senior Minister of State also confirm that force cannot be used to secure any entry?”
“For example, must a Commissioner or Notary Public take additional steps to verify the persons in the room with the client and the relationships of these persons with the client? Relatedly, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on the circumstances where a Commissioner or Notary Public should decline to take the oath or affirmation over video link? My last point is on the security of communication links. The Bill does not specify the types of communication technology or platforms that can be used for the live video or television link. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether there will be any requirements on the security of the platforms that will be permitted? For instance, must the platforms have end-to-end encryption to protect the video transmission? Allowing remote oaths, affirmations or notarisations may open up a new avenue for scammers to solicit personal data. Are there any methods in which clients can easily identify if the video links for oaths, affirmations or notarisations are valid? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Sir, this Bill will introduce a framework for electronic signing of oaths, declarations and notarisations. The framework will allow persons making statutory declarations, making oaths and affirmations or notarising documents to do so over video link. This move away from paper-based processes will bring time and cost savings. I have three clarifications on the safeguards for the framework. My first clarification is on the interpreter's involvement. Interpretation adds another step in the communication process. This can contribute to additional complexity if done over video link. The risk of miscommunication may be higher for cases where specialised interpretation is needed, for example, for persons with special needs or disabilities. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify if an interpreter has to be present in person with the client making the statutory declaration, oaths or affirmations? If the interpreter is allowed to be present over video link, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what steps the Commissioner or Notary Public should take to ensure that the interpretation and communication is accurately done? My second point is on the responsibility of a Commissioner or Notary Public to verify the independence of a client. The risk of clients making oaths or affirmations under undue pressure is always present, even in in-person affirmations or notarisations. However, where the Commissioner or Notary Public is only able to observe the client over video link, the risk is higher. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what steps a Commissioner or Notary Public should take to ensure that the client signs any documents independently and without any undue pressure?”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for mentioning that we do have an interagency work group. But the call now is for a new work group that will comprise the agencies, together with the companies, SMEs and NGOs, and perhaps NTUC as well. Looking at this with new "lens" might enable us to come up with different solutions.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. In my Adjournment Motion, I had asked to consider a timeline for a ban on the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. I understand the reply is no, but could I take one step back and ask whether MOT will consider, at least, setting up a new work group comprising companies, including the SMEs and NGOs with the point of discussing whether we should have this timeline towards a ban on the transportation of workers? I should add that the Senior Minister of State had shared the steps. But just a week after my Adjournment Motion, there were another two accidents involving lorries carrying these workers and another 37 workers were injured. And as President Halimah has said in this House 14 years ago, when she was a Member of Parliament here: "We are talking about the lives and limbs of workers". Fourteen years later, we are still discussing how to resolve this problem. Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza had then, 14 years ago, also asked whether we would legislate to mandate that employers transport workers on buses. So, I really hope that we can have a greater sense of urgency; not an immediate ban but bearing in mind that we have talked about this for 14 years now. My second clarification is whether MOT can consider providing some funding or subsidies towards this transition towards safer modes of transport. I understand the constraints that SMEs face and I think the Government can provide a helping hand to them and also help the workers at the same time.”
“Madam, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think he mentioned there is some peer-to-peer social mixing in CCAs and then, peer-to-mentor social mixing in some of the programmes through ComLink. Could I ask whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is rolling out new programmes that will have peer-to-peer social mixing within the community? So, making friends with the same age group and not just the peer-to-mentor. Secondly, I think the study that we are talking about was done in the US, where it showed that economic connectedness – or basically, social mixing – is probably the most important factor, more than family structure, school or job availability. Could I ask whether MSF can conduct a similar study in Singapore to see whether it holds true that social mixing is the most important factor so that we can tailor our programmes and have a more targeted impact on the ground?”
“Whether we will always require an EIA done when it is open-cage farming.”
“Thank you, Madam. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that EIAs would be requested to be done if there is going to be impact on the environment. So, can I confirm, one, whether it is an environmental impact assessment or an environmental impact study that would be requested? Second, to follow up on Member Ms Nadia Samdin's point, for open-cage farming, can I confirm as well that SFA will always require an EIA to be done?”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for the reply. Could I just ask whether MOT can consider that roadmap, similar to what we have done with climate change? We have a net-zero emissions target for 2050, something that we said was not possible a few years back. Now, it is possible, and we have set up a roadmap for that. I hope it does not take that long to the ban. But could MOT just look into a roadmap towards a ban on the transportation of workers on the back of lorries? Second, I am wondering how often does MOT ignore the advice of suppliers? If we look back, fundamentally, the people who supply the lorries tell us, "Do not put people on the back." How often is it that the Government does not listen to the advice of the people who supply us with equipment?”
“We should put our hearts and minds towards solving this fundamental issue of safety and the fundamental question of whether anyone should be transported in these kinds of unsafe conditions. The lives of our workers matter, too.”
“Ms Teo shared in a Facebook comment on a video of workers being transported by lorries that, "Each worker is the son of a faraway family. Like kids in Singapore, he is the apple of his mother's eye. Accord dignity to the sons who have left their families. It is not a privilege only for Singaporeans. We are better than this." Some have said that this is a migrant issue. Let us not forget that it is not just migrant workers but Singaporean workers, sons, daughters, husbands and wives who are also riding dangerously on the back of lorries, too. We should also remember what Prime Minister Lee said on workplace accidents. He said, "We must put this right. I call on everyone involved – employers, supervisors and workers – to take safety at the workplace seriously." He said, "Lives are at stake. We have the responsibility to keep all our workers safe, whether they are local or foreign." I hope that we can heed Prime Minister Lee's call, take this safety issue seriously and put this right by banning the transport of workers on the back of lorries. I know that the reply from MOT to this speech will be about practical, operational and cost considerations as well. But as my fellow colleague Mr Alex Yam put it when he spoke up about the transport of workers on the back of lorries, "We often quote trade-offs and costs as part of our decision-making matrix, but for the families in the recent accident who have lost their sons in Singapore, that cost would surmount all other costs we talked about". Indeed, the real trade-offs that we should be focusing on here are people's lives and the injuries that could disable a person for life. We know that the reality is that none of us sitting here would like to be transported on the back of a lorry.”
“Workers who have worked six hours must have at least 30 minutes rest immediately before driving. Imagine working 12 hours a day continuously for six hours in a physically exhausting role under the hot sun and resting for 30 minutes before having to drive a heavy vehicle. Would we allow someone like that to drive a school bus? Driving a heavy vehicle and transporting human lives is an important task. We should have specifically designated drivers who can fully focus on this task. We should start a pilot for this and, again, the Government can help provide some funding to kickstart this pilot. Lastly, as an interim measure of this interim measure, can we at least reduce the limit of 12 hours of working before driving? That can go some way towards reducing the risk of accidents. In conclusion, Sir, I am asking that: (a) we plot a roadmap to achieve a ban on the transport of workers on the back of lorries; (b) in the interim, we pilot the use of buses to transport workers for the larger construction companies and implement staggered working hours – the Government can help coordinate and provide some funding for this; (c) in the interim, we pilot the use of specifically designated drivers to transport the workers, and in the interim and as soon as possible, look into reducing the limit of 12 hours of working before driving for the workers currently driving the lorries. I believe everyone in this House and in this country agrees that transporting workers on the back of lorries is not safe. All I am asking is that we treat our workers with the same care that we do for our children and soldiers. Why not? The worker on the back of the lorry is also someone's child, someone's loved one.”
“Senior Minister of State Amy Khor also noted that there are private sector efforts to transport workers using buses. One example is Tong Tar Transport, which was asked by a multinational corporation (MNC) to ferry about 3,000 workers of their main and sub-contractors between dormitories to the construction sites via buses. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said that this was a large-scale endeavour that involved coordination among various bus operators but showed that it is possible under the right circumstances. She encouraged more in the industry to follow. This is too important for the Government to just leave to the industry to figure out. As Senior Minister of State Amy pointed out, transport by buses is not impossible but requires coordination. MOT and LTA are well-placed to coordinate this and perhaps even consider providing some funding to make things happen. I propose that the Government work with the larger construction companies, dormitories and bus operators to coordinate and provide some funding to help in the transportation of workers using buses. This may also involve staggered working hours for workers so that buses can pick them up over multiple trips. We may not be able to fully transition to bus transport for all workers. But a pilot like this is one step in the right direction, and the funding and coordination by the Government will help the workers and companies significantly. My third recommendation is that we have designated drivers who only perform driving duties. Again, this is an interim measure until we achieve a full ban on transporting workers on the back of lorries. Under the new requirements, lorry drivers cannot work for more than 12 hours a day.”
“I have three recommendations, including interim measures that we can take. My first recommendation is that we ban the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. I know I have repeated this many times in this speech. But let me clarify that I am not calling for this to be done overnight but, instead, we should set a timeline for this ban. This is not a radical step. Under the Road Traffic Act, goods vehicles are already not allowed to be used for passengers. There are clearly safety reasons for this. It is unusual, unreasonable and unsafe that we have carved out a "business purpose" exception to the rule. Why do the safety issues disappear when the same exact vehicle is used for business purposes? We should remove this exception and implement a clear rule across the board that for safety reasons, no passengers should be transported on the back of lorries. If we cannot do this right now, then we should set a target year for this safety goal and plot a roadmap to achieve it. Setting a target year will also give the industry certainty and help build organic industry-driven solutions to achieve the goal. My second recommendation is that the Government pilot the use of buses to transport workers for the larger construction companies. I understand that we currently do not have enough buses to transport all workers. A pilot with larger construction companies is a realistic interim step while we scale up to a full ban on transporting workers on the back of lorries. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared that there have been consultations with trade associations in the construction sector and private bus operators. To transport workers in key sectors by buses, we may need to double or triple the number of large buses.”
“How much more time do we need to increase our fleet of buses for a permanent solution to this problem? We would never accept this excuse for our school children and soldiers. We cannot accept this excuse for our workers. For all the parents seated here, would you be okay for your children to be transported on the back of lorries? Would you be okay for your son to be enlisted and transported in conditions which are unsafe? The third reason MOT has given is that retrofitting lorries with seat belts is not safe. Minister Iswaran said that Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) shared that retrofitting of seats, seat belts and reinforcements compromises the structural integrity of the lorry. He said that OEMs said that this may create new safety risks. Of course, the views of the experts manufacturing and supplying the lorries are important. We should listen to them. But – and this is a big "but" – let us not forget that lorry suppliers have also said that it is not ideal to transport workers on the back of lorries. Why do we ignore that view? The long-term solution must be to ban the transport of workers on the back of lorries. I know that MOT has taken some steps to improve transport safety for workers. We require lorries ferrying passengers to be fitted with rain covers. We also require lorry drivers to work no more than 12 hours a day. I am sure Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will mention all these in her reply shortly. I commend these steps, but they simply do not go far enough to address the root of the problem. The fundamental issue is that it is not safe to transport workers on the back of lorries. All the steps we have taken thus far do not address this fundamental issue. We need a permanent solution.”
“Why do we tolerate this? Even the suppliers of the lorries have said that it is not safe to transport workers on the back of lorries. Minister Iswaran said in May 2022 that the lorry suppliers’ view was that it is not ideal for lorries to carry passengers in their rear decks from a road safety perspective. And the Government agrees with this view. This is also not a new issue I am raising. Other Members of this House have spoken up repeatedly against using lorries to transport our workers. Many activists, many of whom are seated in our gallery today, have also spoken up on this, and I thank them for speaking up on this important issue. It is almost weird that we allow something which, whoever we ask, agrees it is unsafe to continue. What more do we need to stop transporting workers on the back of lorries? The Ministry of Transport (MOT) has raised “significant practical and operational considerations” for why it is not currently feasible to install seat belts or use other forms of transport for workers. The first reason given is that transport by buses mean higher costs for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). SMEs also require lorries which can transport both workers and goods to facilitate their business operations. I understand these valid concerns and will speak about these trade-offs later in my speech. The second reason MOT has given is that there are insufficient buses. Minister Iswaran said that a full transition to buses to ferry all workers will require many more buses than the available fleet of private buses. Insufficient buses, however, cannot be an excuse when we know for sure that people have died and have been injured every year and will continue to die and get injured.”
“It would seem that in an accident, the goods will be more protected than the workers sitting on the back of lorries who might be flung out. We have introduced all these safety measures to keep our school children, soldiers and cargo safe. But why do we continue to allow our workers to be transported on the back of lorries when we already know this is unsafe? I am sure that we all agree that it is not safe to transport our workers on the back of lorries. Workers tell us it is not safe. In a media article, workers shared horror stories of friends being injured during sudden breaks or swerves. Workers talked about frequent injuries incurred en route to worksites. A worker told the media that workers often talked about their mode of transport, but felt that it was pointless because their bosses were already well aware of the risks. Many workers fear for their safety and lives, but feel that they do not have a choice or a voice. The data backs up their fears. Over the past decade, there have been so many fatalities and injuries of people on board these lorries. Many examples have been shared in this House so we all know this very well. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared in Parliament in May 2021 that the number of persons on board lorries who were injured or killed in road accidents has been on a downward trend over the last decade. It is good news. But we must remember that “downward trend” does not mean nobody is getting killed or injured. People continue to die or get injured because fundamentally, they are transported in unsafe conditions. For our school children, one death in 2008 was enough to catalyse an industry-wide change. We know that deaths or injuries will occur every year for our workers who are transported on the back of lorries.”
“We have worked hard to ensure safe transportation for our school children, our soldiers and even our cargo. We have done well, very well in these aspects. For our school children, we moved decisively to retrofit seat belts in all school buses when an eight-year-old died in 2008 after being flung out of his school bus in a traffic accident. No expense was spared. We set aside $35 million to help bus companies make our school buses safer. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) appointed workshops to conduct the retrofitting. To minimise business disruptions, workshops even provided replacement buses where feasible. This was a whole-of-nation effort that involved the Government, bus companies, bus drivers, bus attendants and the Singapore School Transport Association. These efforts paid off. In July 2013, a school bus carrying nine kindergarten students crashed into a road barrier. The children on board escaped without serious injuries. Media reports attributed this to the additional safety measures for school buses. For our soldiers, the SAF equipped all SAF tonners with safety lap belts for rear passengers since 2011. Other safety features on our SAF tonners now include protective side boards, railings, canopies, rear safety straps, seating capacity limits and vehicular speed limits. And it is not just our people; even our cargo has to be transported in a safe way. The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules requires loads carried by vehicles to be secured in a way such that danger is unlikely to be caused by the load falling from the vehicle. The rules also require any load higher than the top of the side rails to be securely tied to the vehicle.”
“Sir, two workers, riding with 16 others on the back of a lorry, died in 2021 after their lorry crashed into another vehicle on the Pan Island Expressway (PIE). Since then, dozens more workers have been injured or killed because they, too, were riding on the back of a lorry. We have all seen these lorries full of workers cruising down our roads. Back when she was just an eight-year-old, my daughter Ella pointed to such a lorry and said, "It's not safe, right? If they crash, they will die." She took a photo of that lorry which I shared on social media. Over 1,100 people liked that photo and many shared the same view about unsafe conditions, including Lisa Khoo who said, “Exactly...despite many accidents recently. We still see workers being transported this way on a daily basis. Nothing seems to have changed despite a lot of talk about change.” We have known for many years that transporting people on the back of lorries is not safe. Over the years, we have done so much to make transport safer for our children taking the school bus, and soldiers in Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) tonners. But, we still continue to transport our workers in unsafe conditions on the back of lorries. Why the double standards? The worker sitting on the back of a lorry is also someone’s son, brother or father; someone’s loved one. All I am asking today is that we give workers the same safety that we expect for anyone on our roads. Today, we allow passengers to be transported on the back of lorries for “business purposes”. Business purposes are not good reasons for putting our workers at risk of death or injury every single day. We know an accident will happen. It is not “if”, but “when”. We can all agree that safe transportation is good for everyone.”
“Section 19(4) provides that a requirement of a code of practice has effect despite any duty of confidentiality imposed by any rule of law or a duty imposed by any contract or any rule of professional conduct. This effectively allows a code of practice to override legislative and contractual rules. However, section 21(4) also provides that a code of practice does not have legislative effect. Can the Minister clarify the nature of the code of practice? A code of practice can be introduced and amended by the competent authority without going through Parliament. It would appear inappropriate for such a code to override any duty of confidentiality that is imposed by any rule of law, including any rule introduced by Parliament. Can the Minister give specific examples of rules that the codes may override? My third and final clarification is on the extraterritorial applications of the provision. Under section 19(2), notices and directives can be given to designated providers even if they are constituted or operating outside of Singapore. Part 11 of the Bill deems non-compliance with Directions and notices to be offences even if committed by persons outside of Singapore. Can the Minister elaborate on how these rules and offences will operate in practice when the service providers or individuals are located overseas? How will we ensure implementation of our notices and directives by service providers or individuals located overseas? In the event that a prosecution has to be brought against service providers or individuals located overseas, will steps be taken to secure their attendance in Court? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”