Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 54.
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“Can the Minister of State give an example of a mental illness as a result of work accident that is claimable under WICA?”
“That is what I meant by chopping off heads. Thirdly, the Minister is taking issue with me about me mentioning ISA. My view about POFMA and how I compared it with ISA before this House, basically, is that I see some fundamentals in there. In ISA, the Executive, a Minister, basically decides what is security, what is national interest, and then, say, "Okay, you should be locked up. Detention without trial, without going through the Court." Similarly, you can also appeal to the Court. So, the Executive decides what action to be taken and the action is effected. Under POFMA, similarly the Minister decides. He looks at the circumstances and decides what is in the public interest, what is statement, and decides, "Okay, this is the action to be taken", without having to go to Court. So, to me, there are some fundamental similarities here. The important thing is, POFMA deals with freedom of expression because people say something, and you decide whether this is correct, whether it is factual. It can be sometimes not very sure what is factual or not. I gave those examples; the Minister said those are opinions, not facts. I am not sure in some interpretation or saying in a different way, it can be interpreted as facts and thereby, comes under falsehood. These are some things which are not very clear. Of course, the Minister said that he would assure this House and there would be subsidiary legislation, but the question is, there is a grey area which we are worried about. That is all, Deputy Speaker.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, first, let me thank the Minister for his effort to research into what I had said in Parliament 20 years ago. Yes, what you have quoted me, those were concerns that I had expressed in Parliament and not only my concerns, but concerns also from outside the Parliament. I have also articulated in the process of studying the provisions of the Bill what possibly the Government can abuse some of the provisions in the Bill which I have articulated, which you have quoted me, and I stand by what I said. I will clarify certain points that the Minister made. Some of the legal points, my colleagues will help to clarify those as well. First, he referred to the part in my speech on coffee shops. I talked about the coffee shop discussion on politics in relation to the advancement of new media. What I am saying is that, today, political discourse is not restricted to coffee shops alone. People can go to the Internet and so on. So, it is a progress rather than whispering around. I do not know why he took issue with that. Okay, he said I talked about chopping off heads. First of all, the Minister makes that decision on whether it is falsehood and he interprets any statement whether it is a statement of fact or whether it is opinion, and he makes a decision to say, "Okay, let's take it down" or "Put out a statement of correction." The decision is made. It is the same as chopping off heads! You decide what you are going to do. Later on, of course, the person can go to the Courts. But the fact is that the person would have to abide by the Direction of the Minister first. That is why in Chinese, we say "先斩后奏", so you chop off the head and decide what to do, you take action and you have to act. Subsequently, yes, you go and appeal.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee. With regard to the question of timing, based on existing legislation, the Government has the authority to shut down websites, including Facebook, but that would mean the Prime Minister would lose 1.2 million followers. This means that you can take measures if the situation is very urgent, even without POFMA.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites. The Minister also provided a list in his opening speech that stated clearly the legislation the Government has at its disposal to stop the propagation of online falsehoods. He said that POFMA is a relatively small weapon and there are other stronger weapons on hand. Even if there is an urgent problem, the Government has other powers. So, the scale of the problem does not matter, as the Government already has weapons on hand to stop the propagation of online falsehoods. 3.43 pm”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With regard to the issue of "using water far away to put out a fire nearby", during the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister has said that there are already many existing laws and powers that the Government can utilise and this Bill is only a small part. Therefore, using "water" near or far away is not an issue. The Government already has measures on hand and is able to take action immediately when a falsehood surfaces. As to whether the punishment can be considered as an "execution", my answer is "yes, it is an execution". Why? Because the Minister can decide which action to take. The WP Chairman spoke on this just a while ago. For example, for the two economists involved in a previous case, they were badly affected. If you lodge an appeal with the Courts after being ordered by the Minister to clarify on the website, it is like complaining to the Courts after you have been executed. What is the point of appealing? You would have been "executed" already. This is why we believe that one should not be punished first. Instead, the case should be brought to Court first and be decided by the judge. This is the correct way. 3.41 pm”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged. It is different from the situation where the Minister goes to Court first and requests for the information to be taken down, and you are given a chance to state your reasons and defend yourself in Court. Under this Bill, there is no room for you to defend your case. You must first obey the Minister’s order, then go to Court. So, it is like executing first and appealing later.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision. But the WP believes that if there are any complaints, the Minister should lodge a complaint with the Courts and let the Courts decide. Do you believe that the two approaches achieve the same objective? No, it is not achieving the same objective. Let me explain why. Under the Bill, the Minister decides what is falsehood and what action to take. If the affected party disagrees, he can go to Court to appeal and let the Court decide. But this is like executing someone first and then allowing him to appeal later. The person would have been executed already, what is the point of making an appeal when he is already dead?”
“I heard Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh saying something in Mandarin about what I said is similar to what is provided in the Bill – 异曲同工，我听不清楚，你可以再说一遍吗？I am not clear what he said about different views but the same objective.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun talked about a very interesting Chinese character "众" (zhong). Of course, there is nothing wrong in saying that there are three "人" (ren) or "people" in the character "众" (zhong), but ultimately, there is a "人" (ren) on top in this character. Under this Bill, even though in theory, you can go to the Court and question the Minister’s interpretation of the text, and say that it is wrong to issue the correction or takedown order, but before that, the Minister would have arrived at his own conclusion and made a decision. Besides, public interest is up to the individual's interpretation as it is not clearly stipulated in the Bill. Therefore, it is all up to the Minister to decide what is in the public interest, what is falsehood, and what he will do about it. This means he wields all the powers, and I do not wish to see Singapore's Ministers having so much power. The problem with this is that they may make the wrong decision. Even though you can go to Court and there is a procedure, things are not so simple. So, we believe that the correct way is for the Minister to lodge a complaint in Court and let the judge decide. This is the convincing way. However, under this Bill, for the three characters that represent "people" in the character "众" (zhong), the one on top, which is the Minister, makes the decision, while the other two "people" just sits below him. You can decide whether this is in the public interest or not based on the above interpretation of the character "众" (zhong).”
“I think that the correct way for a society to develop immunity to falsehoods is to enhance civic education and to instil in citizens a habit of finding facts from online news, so that they will not believe in online news easily, nor react to "big news" or Internet instigations. The Internet is an open platform, netizens can rebut irrational, extreme and unfair online remarks. Relevant Government agencies and Ministers can also come out to clarify and state the stance. By doing so, the true nature of online rumours, fake news and misleading remarks will be known, netizens can also be educated and enhance their ability to judge. In conclusion, even though the WP realises that we need to have new strategies to deal with the challenges brought about by the issue of authenticity in the process of information dissemination, the Government, on the other hand, is trying to use this opportunity to make the Minister the sole judge on the issue, without a Court trial, to deal with the space for speech and commentary created by the modern technology. We, therefore, oppose this Bill. Although the Government says that the Court will be the final judge, this may be so theoretically. In the situation where possession of resources is totally unequal, to be engaged in a legal tussle with the Government is like hitting stone with an egg. To introduce such a Bill is not what a Government which claims to defend democracy and public interests should do. It is more like the actions of a dictatorial Government that will resort to any means to hold onto absolute power.”
“The Government has been trying to convince people that they are only targeting fake news, not personal opinions. However, in this regard, I have no faith in the Government. After the implementation of the Bill, will the Government show its true colours? For example, if I say the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages are to buy votes, is this considered information or opinion? I think because of the wide definition of falsehoods in the Bill, the Minister can make a decision on whether it is information or opinion according to need. Similarly, the same words coming from different people may be interpreted differently by the Minister. For example, "the older generation can’t accept a non-Chinese Prime Minister", if these words come from the Minister himself or his supporter, the Minister may say that this is a personal opinion. However, if these words come from the Minister’s political opponent on the social media, the Minister may say that spreading such falsehoods will create racial conflicts, even riots, endangering national security. He can demand this person to publish what is acceptable to the Government, otherwise he will be punished. This is a modern version of "literary inquisition". The Government had previously misinterpreted laws to deal with those it disliked. For example, when the Protection from Harassment Bill was passed in Parliament, the purpose was to protect individuals. But a few years ago, the Government tried to use this Act to include Government agencies as objects to be protected although the High Court ruled that the Government had no right to cite this Act because the Government is not an individual. The case dragged on for a few years which would be a huge burden for any individual who has limited resources.”
“Although the Bill stipulates that during an election, the Minister must appoint a Government official to perform the duties on behalf of the Minister to avoid conflicts of interests, who can ensure that this Government official will not do things that could harm public interests to benefit himself and the Minister? Although this Bill allows people to appeal to the Court against the Minister’s actions, for a common citizen, after being dealt with by the Minister then having to go to the Court to complain, it is both time-consuming and energy-sapping. No common person can have the kind of resources like the Government which has the whole Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) behind it. To engage in a legal tussle with the Government, it is easier said than done. In a word, the WP cannot accept that the Bill empowers the Minister to judge and decide how to mete out punishment, when it is a basic right concerning people’s freedom to comment on politics. The WP believes that the Minister should complain to the Court first and prove to the judges that the news published online is false and there is ill-intent behind the news. It should be up to the judges to decide. This is the acceptable procedure. Secondly, the definition of falsehoods covers too wide an area, and is ambiguous. For example, clause 2 stipulates that the Government has power to deal with misleading remarks, but what is the dividing line between misleading and false statement? In fact, the Government has no interest in studying this further; it just wants the people to hand the power to it and decisions are up to the Government to make. After the Bill was tabled in Parliament, the Government has faced many opposing voices. To win support, the Government has to clarify on what constitutes falsehoods.”
“A Government that can make good use of this platform will be able to accurately introduce policies that are pro-people, therefore, making sure it stays in power. At the same time, people can also express views on Government policies through the Internet, or become an organised force through the Internet to exert pressure on the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a headache faced by a modern government. If a common citizen can express his opinions online and criticise Government policies or a certain politician, the whole world can see. Even if the mainstream media controlled by the Government is ambiguous or try to trivialise the matter, it is becoming more difficult to do so. The Government believes that any rational person will agree that we need to legislate to deal with online falsehoods, and takes this opportunity to empower the Minister to judge public comments and have absolute power to take actions. This is a Bill with a hidden agenda. The WP opposes this Bill. First, this Bill allows the Minister to have absolute power to decide what are falsehoods and what punishment to mete out. It is like during a match, the Minister is both player and referee. Prime Minister Lee pointed out recently that the prevalence of technology and the social media has made it very easy for hate speech and falsehoods to spread. People with malicious intent can easily manipulate opinions and even influence elections. This is seemingly convincing, but how can we be sure that the Ministers from the ruling party will not manipulate opinions and spread falsehoods in order to win elections?”
“This is the so-called "to scare the monkey by slaughtering the chicken." People will try to protect themselves by self-censorship. The true aim of the Government is to protect the ruling party and achieve political monopoly through this Bill. Today, there are various types of online falsehoods, and they, indeed, have brought challenges to the political system and social management. No doubt, we need strategies to deal with them. But do not forget, the Internet and social media have also empowered common citizens to discuss politics and hold the Government accountable. This is a positive development brought about by technology. Nowadays, people do not just discuss politics at coffee shops or only start to open up after a few drinks. When people have doubts about the Government or certain political figures, the talk is not limited to quiet whispering only. This shows that Singaporeans have stepped out the shadow of the white terror of the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows the Minister to detain people for a long period of time without a trial. This is a great step towards openness and democracy for Singapore. In fact, modern technology and the prevalence of the Internet have provided opportunities for modern democracy to improve and develop. Online opinions have provided the Government with a feedback and response platform which is effective, timely and can change flexibly as scenarios change. The Government can communicate with the people directly, know their needs and the issues they face, hence make better policies to improve people’s lives. Public opinions are no longer reflected only during elections.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Law just now said that the powers of the Government under this Bill is narrower than the existing legislation. The fact is, however, after this Bill is passed, the Government will continue to have the same powers as before; powers given to the Government under other legislation will not be rescinded by this Bill. The important thing is that in the other legislation, the powers of the Government are directed at websites or companies, but this Bill is targeted at remarks made by individuals on the social media. The Minister also said that the Bill is to deal with online falsehoods with calibrated legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the crux of the issue is that this piece of calibrated legislation is directed at remarks made by individuals on the social media. This is most worrying. The Workers' Party (WP) opposes the POFMA Bill. We agree that it is necessary to legislate to deal with those who use online falsehoods to destabilise our current political system and multiracial society, to prevent foreigners from influencing election results through the Internet, and to order tech companies to take down remarks which could cause social divide. However, the Bill presented to Parliament is very disappointing and surprising. In our view, the purpose of the Government in introducing this Bill is not simply to deal with the challenges mentioned above. The underlying motive is, in fact, to deter critics on the social media. As soon as the Bill was presented to Parliament, the mainstream media has started reporting and one of their key points is the harsh penalties prescribed in the Bill. In the future, the Government can selectively punish a few offenders to achieve a chilling effect.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a clarification for Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Why are there so many amendments. Is MHA rushing through the Bill?”
“I have three clarifications for the Minister of State. First, is the Tanah Merah facility for sea burial confirmed to be built? Or does it depend on the outcome of the environmental impact studies? The second clarification is on the two Inland Ash Scattering sites. Can I take it that they are confirmed to be built? Or are they again waiting for some studies? Lastly, I understand that the Ministry has been in the design phase of the two sites. I asked the same question since last year. How long more will it take for the design and consultation to be completed? And when can the public expect some information or more information on the sites?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, it was announced last year that Singaporeans will have three new after-death facilities in the near future to meaningfully send off their loved ones. A new facility for the scattering of ashes at sea without having to travel by boat is being built at Tanah Merah. It was reported that there will be four pavilions accommodating seven people each and a shelter for 28 people. I would like to ask when will this facility be ready and whether the facility is big enough to accommodate big family groups wanting to send off their loved ones? I have similar questions for the inland ash scattering facilities at Choa Chu Kang Cemetery Complex and the Mandai Crematorium and Columbarium Complex. It was reported that these would be ready in 2020 and 2021 respectively. Is the construction of the facilities on track for completion in the next two years? We have been given some general information about the facilities being open to all faiths and are set in a beautiful, tranquil and respectful environment. But there are very few details about the facilities. Will the Minister please share what the public can expect from the facilities? Unlike the keeping of ashes in an urn in the Columbarium, the scattering of ashes is the last ceremony for family members to pay their last respects to the remains of their loved ones. As such, it is important that the design of the facilities should be properly thought out and the facilities planning takes into account the comfort and privacy of grieving family members as well as accommodating the ritual requirements of the different faiths. I hope the Ministry will share more information on the planned facilities and perhaps conduct a public consultation? Accountability of Errant Contractor”
“I am concerned that the longer we take in regulating precision medicine and genetic testing, we may run the risk of such an incident happening here that will damage our reputation as a biomedical research and development hub. Data Security for National Electronic Health Record Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, the SingHealth cyberattack and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Registry leak have shaken confidence in the security of our personal and patient information and health records. Learning from these events, how will the personal and patient data be kept in the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) be better secured and protected against hacks and also leaks by administrators, doctors, finance staff and researchers? In 2018, a joint survey on public sentiments towards NEHR showed that over 11% of respondents said they would prefer to opt out of NEHR and 56% said they would like to have their records maintained in NEHR but do not want any healthcare provider to access it without their explicit consent except during emergencies. This negative sentiment preceded the SingHealth cyberattack and HIV Registry leak. Thus, the Government will need to get better buy-ins for NEHR from the public now. Should NEHR be minimally covered by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and the data protection regime that provides for additional safeguards and is patient-centric? Such a move can improve public confidence as many are now familiar with the PDPA framework. Small private clinics will need extra help to secure the data. Patient Electronic Records”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, personalised medicine involves the customisation of medical treatments to specific patient groups based on genetic profiles. At last year's MOH Committee of Supply (COS), I asked the Minister whether MOH was on track with drafting the code of practice for clinical genetic testing. The Minister replied that the Ministry was developing an integrated national strategy for precision medicine research and implementation and would provide a thorough update at an appropriate time. It has been a year since. Hence, I would like to ask for an update. There have been reports that hundreds of patients have benefited from personalised medicine treatments at our public hospitals. I would like to know how many Singaporeans have benefited to date. I have three concerns. First, precision medicine is a fast-developing field of clinical research and application. I am concerned that the longer we take in enforcing the code of practice and implementing the national strategy, developments in the field would have outpaced the code and strategy. Second, if a substantial number of Singaporeans have already obtained personalised medical treatments, then the delay in enforcing the code of practice may expose these Singaporeans to the misuse of their personal and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) data, medical risks associated with DNA-editing and other bioethical risks. Third, last November, a Chinese scientist used gene-editing technology in an experiment that led to the birth of the world’s first genetically modified baby. There was an international uproar and the Chinese Government is putting in a regulatory regime now in response.”
“Are these efforts competing with one another for a small pool of talents or complementing one another for synergies? Deliberate Online Falsehoods”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the COI investigating the SingHealth cyberattack recommended to significantly improve the competency of cybersecurity personnel. Manpower planning and talent development strategy are critical in the national strategy to strengthen cybersecurity. In 2012, the Economic Development Board (EDB) reported that there were 1,200 cybersecurity specialists although there are 140,000 information technology (IT) professionals. After seven years, where do we stand today in terms of number and percentage of cybersecurity specialists among IT professionals? How many more are needed and being targeted? One of the key thrusts of the National Cyber Security Masterplan 2018 is to grow Singapore's expertise in cybersecurity. The Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) has been working with our IHLs to expand cybersecurity programmes. Polytechnics and industry have collaborated to establish cybersecurity centres. IDA is also collaborating with FireEye to upskill cybersecurity professionals. EDB and NEC corporation are collaborating to develop capabilities in strategic areas through overseas attachment. ST Engineering established the DigiSAFE Cyber Security Centre to reskill those interested in a mid-career switch. With the establishment of the Home Team Science and Technology Agency and MINDEF’s Defence Cyber Organisation, and also the public sector Cybersecurity Professional Programme and MINDEF's Cyber Full-time National Servicemen (NSF) Vocation, we now have a varied landscape for manpower and talent development in cybersecurity. Are these different efforts being coordinated by the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) and IDA in accordance with the national strategy?”
“Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, whether the ongoing issue with Malaysia, namely, the airspace and the port issues, if they remain unsolved, would they affect Singapore's economy? The second clarification is whether the Minister sees the defence industry having the potential to contribute to the Singapore economy.”
“The Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) and the Defence Science Organisation (DSO) have been working with the private sector to tap into the new technologies of Industrialisation 4.0 to enhance defence capabilities. There has been some interesting reverse flow of technology transfers though, for example, the production of mass thermal scanners to combat the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak. But there has not been a systematic push to commercialise our defence technologies, even though one in 12 scientists and engineers in Singapore is employed by the defence sector. Economic defence is one of the six pillars of our Total Defence strategy. Our SMEs are an integral part in economic defence. Integrating them into the research and innovation sector is a key thrust of the RIE2020 Plan. One way to do this is to build a strong technology transfer ecosystem bringing together the Ministry of Defence, DSTA, DSO, ST Engineering and our SMEs.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, innovation and R&D are key enablers of success in Industrialisation 4.0. According to the National Research Foundation, Singapore has built a cluster of globally impactful universities and specialised research institutes staffed by cohorts of researchers doing cutting-edge research. There are also numerous research collaborations with industry partners, though most are with large corporations. We are only seeing R&D investments in startups bearing some fruit lately. The Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE2020) Plan recognises that Singapore needs to focus more on the "enterprise" component as our research and innovation base has firmed up. One of the four major thrusts is a sharper focus on value creation, allocating more of the R&D budget towards public-private research collaborations and helping companies to absorb new technologies to further our Future Economy and Smart Nation initiatives. There appears to be an important gap in this whole plan. While our universities and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research research institutes have offices of technology transfer to support the commercialisation of research and innovation and enhance collaboration with companies, our Government institutions do not have such setups. The biggest potential here is the commercialisation of military technology, as has been shown by the US and Israel. The Israelis have become renowned worldwide in efficiently effecting technology transfers to commercialise military technologies for civilian applications to benefit their economy. Singapore is lagging behind in this area. Technology transfers have been moving one way, benefiting our defence sector.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, SCDF designated residential buildings that go beyond 40 storeys as Super High-rise Residential Buildings. There are additional Fire Code requirements, such as the creation of refuge floor with holding area at 20-storey intervals and the installation of larger capacity fire lifts. In 2013, such buildings were required to have two fire lifts to facilitate the evacuation of people with disabilities by firefighters. After a tragic fire at Marina Bay in 2014, where two security guards died in the fire, the requirement to appoint trained Competent Persons for Super High-rise Private Residential Buildings was implemented. The Competent Person, such as the Managing Agent’s supervisor, will perform fire safety duties and train security guards to execute evacuation procedures properly. In a fire at a 48th floor unit at Pinnacle Duxton in May last year, it was reported that a man and a woman in their 60s were hurt, suffering smoke inhalation. It was also reported that many residents living on the 47th and 48th floors chose to use the lifts to evacuate despite knowing the risk of being trapped in the lifts. A senior aged 64 said he and his family walked from the 48th to the 45th floor, then gave up and took the lift to evacuate. There is a gap here for Super High-rise Public Residential Buildings, as there are no Competent Persons and trained security guards to help conduct regular public education of residents and facilitate proper evacuation during a fire. There is urgency in this with the ageing society, as more and more seniors find it onerous to walk down 20 storeys to the refuge floor. Some seniors may not even know that they should not evacuate using the fire lifts. Updates on SG Secure”
“I would like to know whether the Government has the intention to bring a Bill to Parliament to establish the Home Team Science and Technology Agency as a Statutory Board, so that the mission, role and specific functions of the agency can be transparently stated in law and regulated. Religious Harmony”
“Chairman, Sir, it was announced that the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HSTA) will be established to develop science and technology capabilities to support the Home Team's operational needs. The Budget Book states that the Home Team is growing a pool of inhouse scientists and engineers to develop capabilities in sensemaking and surveillance, biometrics and profiling, forensics and dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives incidents. If the agency is the extension of the current work of the Science and Technology office to pre-empt and contain terrorist attacks, that is a good development. However, I am concerned with the scope of surveillance and profiling technology to be deployed and developed. Sometime ago, the Minister for Home Affairs said that the integration of facial recognition technology into the Home Team information technology (IT) systems could help automate Police work. Recently, many organisations, including tech giants, such as Microsoft and Google, have raised alarm on facial recognition and its potential abuse if left unregulated. Some critics have pointed to China's misuse of the technology for political control. How will the Government ensure that the data collected is authentic, is secured and not subjected to abuse, political or otherwise? What safeguards are there to ensure that the privacy and rights of citizens will not be violated? What recourse will citizens have to address possible misuses of personal data and violations of privacy by the Home Team?”
“We have signed arts and culture agreements with Australia and China that had led to intense professional exchanges and curatorial collaboration between museums. We should do the same with our ASEAN neighbours, especially since we share much historical and cultural kinship. Third, we should turn our attention to digital diplomacy. We already have the digital infrastructure to do so. The next step is to develop our capabilities in making use of it to achieve our diplomatic objectives. For instance, we could have made use of the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit last year to enhance our soft power when people all over the world were searching "where is Singapore". I also welcome the launching of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network. Singapore should become a smart nation exercising smart power.”
“The "smart nation" initiative, underpinned by excellent digital infrastructure and digital government, has also led to a high ranking in the category of "digital". We need to change the perception of our neighbours of Singapore as an arrogant nation that likes to compare itself favourably to other developing countries. Oftentimes, the perceived condescension is due precisely to our success as a business hub and a global city adopting the most advanced technologies. Success breeds envy among neighbours, and this envy can turn toxic if our neighbours come to believe that our success is due to our taking advantage of their weaknesses. I believe we can do three things to enhance our soft power diplomacy to correct the perceived condescension and prevent envy from turning toxic on us. First, our government-to-government engagement should deepen with the objective of facilitating economic development of our neighbouring countries. We have done so much with China in this respect. For instance, last September, we inked deals with China to promote the replication of the Tianjin Eco-City development in other Chinese cities, establish a National University of Singapore institute in Chongqing to conduct scientific research as well as technology transfer and commercialisation, and develop startups and partnerships in emerging industries in Suzhou. Is there a reason why we are not reaching the same level of intense engagement with our ASEAN neighbours? Second, ASEAN is made up of countries with complex histories and cultures. We are one ourselves, and it will take more than government-to-government engagements to develop our soft power diplomacy. We should enhance our people-to-people networking at institutional and practitioner levels for our cultural sector.”
“Second, with the global and regional powers turning their strategic focus to Southeast Asia, we should be careful. History has shown that when the great powers turn to a region and bring their strategic interests to bear on the countries, well-meaning intentions could easily turn to hostile rivalries. We cannot afford to let the powers compete over us and disrupt our unity with divide-and-rule or containment strategies. We have been painstakingly building up ASEAN after the Cold War. In the event that great power conflicts should erupt again, Singapore would fare better in an ASEAN standing strong together against foreign interference. Realising the ASEAN motto of "One Vision, One Identity, One Community" may well be the key to Singapore's survival and success for the next 50 years. Soft Power Diplomacy Sir, some foreign policy pundits and political scientists have emphasised the importance of soft power in the exercise of influence on the international stage. The American political scientist who pioneered the concept of soft power, called the ability to combine hard and soft power in a successful strategy, "smart power". It is time we deepen our soft power diplomacy to effectively implement what I believe should be a strategic shift to focus our foreign policy on Southeast Asia. Since 2015, communications consultancy Portland and the University of Southern California have published Soft Power 30 Index to measure the soft power of the top 30 countries on the international stage. In the last report, Singapore came in 21st. It comes with no surprise that the report ranked Singapore top in the category of "enterprise" due to our favourable business, rule-of-law and innovation environment.”
“Chairman, Sir, as a highly connected small city-state at the heart of Southeast Asia, Singapore is extremely vulnerable to upheavals in the region. China’s peaceful economic rise has taken a different turn with military manoeuvres in the South China Sea and its soft and hard power diplomacy vis-a-vis individual ASEAN states. China’s rise has led other powers to turn to Southeast Asia. America was the first to do a pivot to Southeast Asia, entering into bilateral comprehensive partnerships with ASEAN member states. India elevated its “Look East” policy to the "Act East" policy in the shadow of China's One Belt One Road investments in South Asia. Japan has also shifted its geostrategic focus from Asia Pacific to Indo-Pacific. We have forged close relationships with the US and then with rising China, and more recently India, guided by economic pragmatism and geopolitical realism. We have maintained our sovereignty and our commitment to peace and international rule of law. We should continue to do all these, but does the new complex environment mean that Singapore should consider pursuing its own strategic pivot to Southeast Asia? There are at least two reasons why we should focus on Southeast Asia. First, ASEAN is fast becoming an economic powerhouse. Through the ASEAN Economic Community and other initiatives aimed at economic integration, GDP per capita increased by 70% from 2007 to 2017. The combined GDP of $2.77 trillion places ASEAN among the top 10 economies in the world. ASEAN has a young population, many countries are still in the earlier phases of development, so there is a lot of scope for growth. We should not miss this new growth story, right here in our neighbourhood.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Minister for Finance. I would like to know how long the Government expects the increase in structural expenditure in healthcare to last. And at what speed will it increase? I understand that the increase is largely due to the ageing population. The biggest ageing generation is my generation, the MG. I would expect that we will diminish in number over time. So, how much exactly is the projection and expenditure?”
“Sir, Minister Iswaran, in his Statement, mentioned twice that this attack is state-linked, which means I take it that it is not a normal kind of cyberattack and Singapore is being targeted by another state and thereby this attack is state-linked. If that is the case, then may I know whether the Government knows which state is behind the attack or is linked to this attack? And, if so, whether or not the Government is prepared to share the knowledge with Singaporeans on which state is carrying out such an attack on us. In the details, Minister Iswaran mentioned that the attack was conducted by a professional group, APT Group. Does the Government or CSA in its investigations, know what is the name of the Group and where this Group has launched the attack from? And the Minister also mentioned that data was copied to another server. So, may we know where is the server sited?”
“I would like to ask the Minister what is the water borne fee for that you charge? I thought it is for infrastructure. It was increased significantly, I think, a few years ago, if I remember correctly.”
“I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on the Government's position on such so-called PUB's investment in infrastructure. So, all these investments will be solely borne by Singaporean consumers through water price hikes, or should the Government also provide grants, some capital grants, for instance, for the investment, thereby lightening the consumers' burden?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Prime Minister. Given that the 4G leadership, especially the three frontrunners for the next Prime Minister, largely come from the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) or the Civil Service, is it not a sign that there is now a political elite class in Singapore?”
“Sir, Minister Chan Chun Sing in his earlier reply on the PA talked about political outreach. I would like to seek clarification from him. PA activities are headed by a grassroots adviser, who is a PAP MP, and also a prospective PAP candidate, who is also appointed as the grassroots adviser, or a previous candidate of PAP heading activities on the ground. Are these activities not considered as political outreach?”
“Thank you, Sir. I do take it that Budget is a serious matter, and there is always secrecy because it might affect market movements and all that. But since the Government has no intention to raise GST, I think there is nothing wrong for the Government to come up earlier to say that, "Look, we do not have the intention to raise GST at this Budget." That would have cleared the air and the confusion on the ground of speculation that, "Well, you are keeping quiet, you are raising tax, but not mentioning what kind of tax." GST is a form of tax. And that, I think, contributed to ground confusion, and leading to the impression formed. I can understand that in the heat of exchange, that it comes to your mind, you articulated that. I think Ms Lim accepted that that was at the point in time and now it is clear that the Government has no intention to raise GST. And her suspicion was not really correct – at that point in time.”
“Chairman, Sir, personalised medicine which involves the customisation of medical treatments to specific patient groups based on genetic profiles, seems to be a fast-emerging field of clinical research and application in Singapore. But I believe the general public knows very little about this. There is, for example, the National Precision Medicine Initiative, which appears to need supercomputing resources to gather the genomic information of the whole Singapore and Southeast Asian populations to determine genetic risk and other personalised treatment. Can the Minister share more about the National Precision Medicine Initiative and whether MOH has oversight of the Initiative and its programmes? What is the long-term plan for the development of precision medicine in Singapore? Will a national registry of genetic disorders be developed? If so, how will it be used and how will the data be shared, nationally and internationally? Does precision medicine research here involve deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) editing? If so, what are the bio-ethical rules governing the research? 4.15 pm In March last year, MOH announced that the standards for the provision of clinical genetic testing were being drafted and would be ready as a code of practice by late 2017 before becoming enforceable in late 2018. Is the Ministry still on track with this timeline? It was reported in The Straits Times in August last year that hundreds of patients have already benefited from personalised medicine treatments in Tan Tock Seng Hospital, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) and Singapore General Hospital (SGH). I would like to know how will ordinary Singaporeans benefit from precision medicine and how will the Government manage the cost of its widespread usage.”
“For the convenience of the media and the public, and to signal the Government's commitment in maintaining the standard of translation, I suggest an independent portal be set up, so that the public can check the official translated Government terms easily, including Chinese street names. If there are enough visits to the website, we will be able to collect enough data to develop this website into a machine translation system. This will help improve Singapore's translation standard. Tackling Cyberbullying Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, Sir, a 2014 study done by the Singapore Children's Society and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) found that one in nine adolescents said they have been victims of cyberbullying. As social media and messaging application platforms become more prevalent, the Ministry must tackle this problem head-on, and fast. Last year, the Media Literacy Council organised the "Better Internet" campaign to promote responsible online habits and safe Internet use. However, the resources available on the Council website are limited. There is no dedicated helpline, no support network or resources for parents and teachers and no channels for victims to submit cyberbullying reports. There is much we can learn from Australia, where the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is responsible for promoting online safety. The Office provides extensive resources on reporting of cyberbullying, helplines, online safety programmes and resources for schools and classrooms. The first step we can take is to organise a centralised resource bank, as well as to create a safe space, for victims to take refuge in. I urge the Ministry to consider this to tackle cyberbullying. Support Workers for Digital Economy”
“Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Chairman, it has been four years since the National Translation Committee (NTC) was established in 2014. I would like the Minister to provide an update on the work of the Committee. In order to encourage Singaporeans to pay more attention to translation, Government agencies should take the lead. Take Chinese, for example. Currently, the media and members of the public can check the standard translation of official terms from MCI's database. However, this glossary page was hidden in a remote corner of the MCI website, and people who are not aware of this service cannot find it at all. This database does not contain names of buildings and the streets either. A reader from Lianhe Zaobao recently pointed out that there were many translation errors with regard to the Chinese street names in the pamphlet distributed by a certain Town Council. There used to be standardised Chinese translation of street names, and the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has published a Chinese version of the street directory before. Currently, if the public wants to find the Chinese name of a certain street, they can go to the website of Street and Building Names Board (SBNB) under the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to check. However, there were few people who are aware of such a service. To standardise the official translated names is the job of the Committee. However, after standardisation, if the public is still unaware of its existence, it would be such a waste.”
“Meanwhile, MOE could also look into communicating and educating parents on the many pathways to success in the new economy, so as to lessen their anxiety and, thus, lessen the transfer of the anxiety to their children. Sports in Schools”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I understand that MOE has been retooling the education system to shift the unhealthy focus on academic competition to emphasise holistic education and the love of learning. But a culture of "academic results focus" has already set in among the parents. We cannot blame the parents because they want to give the best to their children. They learned the culture from the old focus on academic competition, believing in the old paradigm of good grades and a linear path from elite primary schools to the top universities. When they are faced with globalisation and technological disruptions, they become even more anxious about making sure their children get the best start in life. When MOE rightly sought to improve preschool education by setting up MKs, some parents saw this as a new first stop to academic success. It was reported that a study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to look at the connection between well-being and PISA test achievement found that Singapore students have higher levels of anxiety, compared to the OECD average. For example, 76% of Singapore students reported feeling very anxious for a test even if they were well-prepared, compared to the OECD average of 55%. The students involved in the study were mostly Secondary 4 students. I hope MOE could do a study to see whether this kind of anxiety is also affecting primary school children and even children in preschool, so that we can learn how to mitigate the problem. MOE should not stop to complete the transformation of the system despite these diehard habits. It will take time to change such an entrenched culture.”
“Sir, I think we should protect our local employers and local workers more than foreign workers. Clarification, please. Firstly, what is the current profile of the long-term unemployed workers compared to 2016? Secondly, whether agencies like e2i and the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) would focus more on service of these long-term unemployed workers who seek help because there was feedback that they had visited these agencies for several times but remain unemployed.”
“Many initiatives have been undertaken and enhanced, such as the enhanced PCP, the Attach-and-Train scheme, and the enhanced CSP. I would like to ask the Minister: how effective have MOM's efforts been in helping locals, particularly mature PMETs and those who have been unemployed for long periods, to take on new job opportunities? Will MOM similarly be doing more to help the rank-and-file workers? Skills Fit, Job Fit and Career Growth”
“Chairman, Sir, last year, we experienced one of the best years in economic growth in recent memory. However, despite stronger than expected economic growth, long-term unemployment has been sticky. Long-term unemployment rose to its highest in 14 years in 2016. In September 2016, three in 10 unemployed resident workers could not find employment after more than six months. The long-term resident unemployment rate rose to 0.8%. This meant that 17,600 workers were jobless for at least 25 weeks. The spike was mainly caused by older workers aged 50 and above and PMETs experiencing extended joblessness. In September 2017, according to MOM figures, the rate remained at 0.8%. Older workers and PMETs again had lower rates of finding employment within six months than the overall rate. Economists and the Government have explained the issue as caused by job-skills mismatches. New technologies and economic shifts have made many job functions and skills obsolete. Therefore, it is good that the Government implemented programmes, such as the PCP and Place-and-Train (PnT) programmes in the last few years to help workers retrain and reskill. Despite these programmes, long-term unemployment has remained sticky. PCP placed 3,300 PMETs in 2017, but only 10% were long-term unemployed workers. PnT placed 1,800 workers, but only 5% were long-term unemployed workers. Why are the programmes not helping enough long-term unemployed workers? What else can we do for the long-term unemployed workers? Employment Support for Locals Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, during last year’s COS debate, Minister Lim Swee Say shared that MOM was working on a few strategies to provide enough jobs for Singaporeans and better-quality ones, too.”