Murali Pillai
Singapore
“Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the related oral questions, as well as written questions, all filed by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim1, 2, for a subsequent Sitting. The hon Member may wish to withdraw her Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if her queries are answered in today's Sitting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member Ms Poh's third question on jet fuel. We are working with the aviation stakeholders to monitor the fuel supply for aviation hubs carefully to ensure that it remains stable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Dennis Tan's question on maritime hub, I just want to say that for the now, for the current, port operations have been stable. There are no significant fuel supply shortages, and we have adequate fuel and bunker supply.”
“Sir, I would like to answer the hon Member Shawn Loh's question on the status of the aviation hub. There have been some flight disruptions. Apart from the disruptions, most of Changi Airport's flights have been operating normally. The disruptions have been limited to some Singapore-Middle East passenger and cargo services.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Chia for his kind words about the efforts we have made thus far to attract young talent. On the specific issue about the GRIT programme, that involves traineeship, the good thing about the maritime sector is that we have jobs available.”
“It was John Harrison's invention of the chronometer, highly accurate even at sea, that allowed longitudes to be plotted and journeys to be precise enough to chase a nimble whale. Likewise, Singapore must remain alive to the transformational power of new technologies, to master new tasks and chart new journeys through untested waters.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,219 lines we hold for Murali Pillai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the efforts of Internal Security Department (ISD) in identifying this particular youth that was arrested earlier this month and detained by the Minister under the powers vested in him in the ISA. Based on what has been announced, it is pretty clear that if not for the timely intervention of ISD, people would have been hurt and there could have even been more serious injuries, or even death, arising from him being at loose and wanting to espouse his thoughts. My question is in relation to a point made by the hon Minister in the interview by the press. He said that he felt that there was still a need for legislative levers in relation to holistically dealing with this phenomenon of self-radicalised youths. So, may I just ask the hon Minister of State, what are the legislative levers that are being contemplated to deal with this phenomenon?”
“Sir, I am glad that MSF is taking up my suggestion to extend IBP to JTC. One further suggestion is also to consider whether any rental rebates can be given in relation to small- and medium-sized enterprises who are willing to employ PwDs.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. I would like to proceed with the division, please.”
“Mr Speaker, I respectfully call for a division.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. I wish to call for a division.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. I would like to proceed with the division please.”
“Mr Speaker, I respectfully call for a division.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to call for a division.”
“Just a short clarification for the hon Member Leon Perera. He mentioned that one of the reasons people do not want to use the Lease Buyback Scheme was because they want to fund the purchase for their children's flat. May I just ask for the source of this reason, having regard to the fact that in November 2022, this question was asked in the House and the hon Minister has given a comprehensive answer? One of the major drivers is that these people would find that their retirement needs are met and therefore they do not need to enter into Lease Buyback arrangements. That is the primary reason. Secondly, there are other schemes that the Government avails to seniors, such as the Pioneer Generation Package and so on, which allows them to meet their expenses.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thought I would be outstaying your welcome by asking.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to clarify a point raised by the hon Leader of the Opposition. I have checked and I just want to clarify that the land cost together with construction costs, make up total development cost of BTO projects. HDB's proceeds from BTO sales cannot fully recover this development cost, MOF grants are being given to HDB to make up for this deficit. The $40 billion which I referred to is a cumulative deficit since HDB's formation in 1960 and that would comprise some payments for land, but not entirely. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for pointing this out.”
“Much obliged, Sir. Let me just say this. I took it as the grants being the equivalent to the land cost. I am happy to check this and if indeed my learned friend's point is correct, which is that there should not be a correlation, I will make the necessary clarification. I thank him for drawing the matter to my attention.”
“I thank the hon Leader of the Opposition for the question. That was indeed what I was referring to. It was in relation to what the HDB had paid or committed to pay to the Government for the land that was used to build the HDB flats.”
“Alright, Sir. I will just make this suggestion and I will go to my conclusion. This presents a problem for HDB because as a matter of policy, it does not directly allocate homes to persons to be fair to all Singaporeans in the circumstances. So, what I am suggesting, Sir, is for a system to be implemented, which allows HDB to provide inputs upstream during the divorce proceedings so that this can be taken into consideration by the Court to make a just and equitable decision with regard to the needs of the child. I will now conclude, Sir. I chose the second Motion over the first not because of any partisan politics but because I prefer the hard truths over soft lies. There is no point in making vainglorious promises without a way to deliver. There is no courage in forsaking the future for the present. These are the two fatal flaws of the first Motion. The second Motion commits us to providing affordable housing to Singaporeans today in a way that bends the laws of the market to give the most to those who have the least. This is socialism in action. It also commits us to an ideal beyond the political – that all of us in this House owe a duty as much to the Singaporeans of tomorrow as those of today. The second Motion asks a lot of us. It is by no means an easier choice but I believe it is the right one.”
“I support the Motion for its underlying philosophy of socialism and its long-term policy orientation. I would like to contribute several suggestions to ensure that the less fortunate amongst us will continue to be well looked after. First, as I alluded to earlier, the importance of ensuring that our public housing scheme provides all Singaporeans with access to affordable homes extends to well beyond the specific purpose of providing roofs over our heads. One area that I am concerned about is how our housing policy is connected with the development of human capital. Singapore has done quite well in this area. In the most recent World Bank Human Capital Index, Singapore ranks as the best country in the world in human capital development. A child born today in Singapore will be 88% as productive when she grows up. I have no doubt that this percentage is contributed in part because of our successful housing policy. This is an encouraging statistic but more can be done to develop our children in stable and conducive housing environments that will allow them to be the best they can be. From time to time, I come across cases involving single mothers, with their children in tow, asking for urgent housing assistance because they have consented to the division of matrimonial properties in divorce proceedings, which in my respectful view, does not adequately take care of the needs of their children —”
“What he is in fact asking Singaporeans is to dream an impossible dream and then ask the Government to make it true. If we were kind, we would say he is being naive. But if we were honest, we would say something else. I seek Mr Leong Mun Wai's permission to engage in a thought experiment to better understand the proposal that PSP made in its manifesto for General Elections 2020 – compulsory SERS for all old flats. That was the alternative to the PAP's VERS. If we were to go back to what the Prime Minister has suggested or rather dealt with in his 2018 speech, he referred to three estates – Bedok, Ang Mo Kio and Marine Parade. He mentioned that all of them were built around the same time, between the 1970s and the early-1980s. I did a calculation. They probably have about at least 117,000 units. If all these flats were to be SERS-ed, what would be the compensation that PSP proposes to pay, given the position that Mr Leong Mun Wai took in his Adjournment Motion? He would very well know the compensation that Ang Mo Kio SERS units get. As a median, it is about $411,000 per unit. If you were to just multiply the units, I get a figure of at least $40 billion. As I understand, that is the market rate. What is being suggested is a higher rate so that there is some cash from VERS – just like SERS. So, what would then be the amount? Just to give you some comparison, our spend for our annual budget is about $100 billion. This is coming in at $40-plus billion just at market rate. I would be grateful for Mr Leong Mun Wai's elucidation of the PSP's proposal that there should be compulsory SERS for all flats. I now turn to the Motion standing in the name of the Minister for National Development.”
“This asset can be monetised through programmes such as the Silver Housing Bonus scheme or Lease Buyback Scheme. All these can provide them with decent financial support. The hon Member Leong Mun Wai appears to be averse to such monetisation. What then would be the implications? How then would you support some people in these situations who want to enhance their retirement expenditure? What is PSP's proposal to that? For those who have purchased resale flats, they would know the remaining length of the leaseholds beforehand. This would allow them to make informed choices before purchasing the resale flats. For example, they may decide to purchase resale flats that may have substantial remainders that will allow them to monetise the assets like owners of BTO flats or they can decide to buy leaseholds which are long enough for them to stay in their homes until the end of their lives, which will naturally mean that the opportunity to monetise their assets will not be as good. Whatever the reasons, they know when the leaseholds apart will expire. Against this context, it seems to me unreasonable for a person who purchase a resale flat, knowing full well when the leasehold expires, to then expect to get compensation that is substantially more than the value of the tail end of the leasehold under VERS. It may be useful to remember what the Prime Minister said in his 2018 National Day Rally speech. He specifically made the point that there was not much financial upside to VERS as compared to SERS. Given what the Prime Minister had said, I struggle to understand why the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai contends that Singaporeans are expecting VERS to be like SERS for all.”
“Much credit for this belongs to the past and present officers of HDB who were encouraged to think boldly and creatively to deliver on its mission of providing affordable and high-quality public housing units to generations of Singaporeans who have ever higher expectations and aspirations. We owe them a huge debt of thanks. These officers and those in the Ministry of Finance (MOF) too, think of Singapore as an immortal being playing an infinite game. This means planning for the very long term and, as an economist said, "We will all be dead but our children and grandchildren and everyone we care for still live on." With respect, having regard to what has happened over the past six decades, for the hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament to insinuate through this Motion that public housing in Singapore is neither affordable nor accessible is rather rich. This may be an opportune time for me to deal with the point that hon Member Leong Mun Wai made in his speech in this House about the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS). He said VERS is not a viable solution to the lease decay problem. This was because Singaporeans are expecting VERS to be like the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) for all, meaning there is an expectation for residents to be paid. With respect, I question the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament's assumption that Singaporeans are expecting VERS to be like SERS for all. He is, respectfully, playing a dangerous game. It may be useful to understand the factual context clearly. A person buying a BTO flat, say, in his early 30s, will get a 99-year lease. In such a case, there will be a more than sufficient remainder of the lease at the point of his retirement in his 60s or 70s.”
“I hope I have shown the underlying socialist bent in our public housing policy. During the chaos of the 1960s, many Singaporeans lived in squalor and only 9% of our population was in public housing. Then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew envisioned a Singapore where all Singaporeans will own their own flats so that they will have tangible stakes in our nation. This is the thing about public housing. Housing is not just for housing's sake. Housing can drive progress in connected areas such as better education outcomes from our children who live in better conditions, higher productivity and economic growth. With economic growth and generations of surpluses, we can then invest more in public housing. That was the virtuous circle that Mr Lee and his team built. That may have sounded like a pipedream then. But, almost 60 years later, it is clear we have made substantial progress in achieving this vision. Singapore has been transformed and Singaporeans' fortunes have changed for the better. The hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai said that historically, units were sold without HDB accounting for land cost. I dispute that, because when I looked at the financial statements of HDB, they have calculated that since 1960, about $40-plus billion was owed by HDB in relation to the land cost of the land upon which public housing was provided. It is monitored and it is certainly in the books. Our Government continues to invest heavily in public housing programmes, building affordable and high-quality public housing estates. At the same time, the investments and policies are carefully calibrated to ensure that the interests of future generations of Singaporeans are protected too.”
“The hon Member Ms Poa had suggested the waiting time should also include time of an unsuccessful applicant, but as what the hon Minister had said, there are many, many ways for one to acquire, or several ways for one to acquire a BTO flat. You can apply for an SBF flat, you can apply for a BTO flat in a mature estate and you can apply for a BTO flat in a non-mature estate. So, these are different pathways. To just blanketly measure waiting time for all these cases together does not make sense, but qualitatively, we are already measuring it, because for those in a non-mature estate, they get priority and the Minister already said they will get their flat within three tries. The Singapore ownership figures I highlighted does not, however, speak for the 3% in our population of Singapore residents who cannot afford to own their homes. For them, they are provided with public rental housing. This compares favourably with a number of other countries. In Hong Kong, it is 29% for social housing units; for Netherlands, it is 32%. Monthly rents payable by Singaporeans depend on their household income. At the lowest range, for those who earn $800 or less and have not owned subsidised housing before, it is between $26 and $33 per month. Although global comparisons are available, it makes the most sense to compare such rents against the next available option in Singapore – the private market. Hon Members will not be surprised to hear that such rooms go for 10 to 20 times more in the private market, even on a shared basis. Not only that, I should also mention that our Government has specific policies to support households in rental flats to own homes. In the past decade alone, 7,800 rental households have progressed to home ownership. That is heartwarming and laudable.”
“It is difficult, but useful, for us to distinguish the problem of a delay in getting a flat with the problem of affordability. The comparison I gave just now, as well as the fact that many Singaporeans can service their mortgages through CPF alone speaks volumes. On the problem of delay, as may be recalled, buildings across the world was affected by the pandemic and Singapore is no exception. HDB, as we heard from the hon Minister, is dealing with the problem decisively by building 100,000 units between 2021 and 2025, and that, I understand, is the forecast of the demand. The hon Member Ms Hazel Poa has suggested ramping it up to the numbers we saw in the 1980s, but is that a wise idea? I cannot put it better than what Mr Sitoh had said. Be careful of what you wish for, because if you were to do it wrongly, then the sellers will get upset. Then we will get back to Parliament and somebody will be making arguments on behalf of the sellers. So, it has to be a very calibrated approach to make sure that you build in accordance with what the market can absorb, at the same time, deal with the aspirations of Singaporeans. It is a balancing act. Let me give Members a comparison. In Hong Kong, it was announced that they are building 30,000 temporary public housing units over a five-year period. This is a temporary solution and it seems to me that they have a more difficult housing problem. The current waiting time in Hong Kong was reported to be 5.6 years. With this temporary solution, the government intends to cut it down to 4.5 years. In Singapore, the median waiting time is between four and 4.5 years and is expected to come down to below three years by 2024.”
“The hon Minister had recently explained that the Government provides subsidies and grants to allow the vast majority of Singaporeans to purchase homes which are about five times their annual incomes and he also mentions that this compares very favourably to cities like London, Los Angeles, Sydney and of course, Hong Kong too. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Members of Parliament dispute this. They feel that the servicing of the mortgages through the CPF presents a cost, even though it may not be accompanied by cash payment for most Singaporeans. Now, I want to highlight that you can only use the Ordinary Account of the CPF to fund housing instalments. The Special Account is preserved, the Retirement Account is preserved. At the end of the day, what is the PSP referring to as cost? This is really our retirement. So, when the people, the residents pay through CPF and when they sell their house, they get a refund, it is really to secure their retirement. Now, if this is not a good idea, then what is PSP's proposal to take care of the retirement needs of such people? Indeed, in the 2022 Urban Land Institute Asia Pacific Home Attainability Index, Singapore’s public housing was ranked as the most affordable. This speaks volumes. I do recognise that there are fellow Singaporeans who feel that housing has become very expensive and out of their reach. For example, one third of the cases in my Meet-the People Sessions now relate to housing matters – and quite a few of them are young people who are in the queue for flats, just like what Mr Sitoh Yih Pin had said. Here, I want to acknowledge that they are anxious because the wait has been longer than expected for their flats and with rents being so expensive, the pain of the wait is very real.”
“The first speaks as if everyone is entitled; the second requires us to respect the differences in society. Let me put this more plainly – the second Motion bears the signature of two key components of the PAP Government – socialism and long-term planning. First, it requires that the Government balances the different interests within the current generation, showing us that there are contestations among different groups even today. In this, the Government's philosophy has been socialist – that the least among us must have the most. Second, the Motion requires us to make a difficult political choice – to be fair, not just to the citizens of today, but to those of tomorrow. This is difficult because we must resist the political temptation to pander to the voters of today who decide based on the tangible benefits which they can see and experience, rather than any notions of fairness to people to whom they owe nothing – the citizens of tomorrow. And yet, this PAP Government is a strange creature that feels this debt and in housing, as in so many other policies, including most recently, climate change adaptation, it has committed itself to the long-term. On housing affordability, it may be useful to bear in mind how Singapore compares with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. An average household in the lowest quintile of an OECD country spends 37% of the household income on housing. For the middle-income households, this translates to 31%. In fact, they spend most of their money on housing as compared to other essentials such as food and clothing, education and health. Let us compare this to Singapore.”
“In comparison, close to 70% of European Union residents own their homes. In Switzerland, it is about 39%, in the UK and US, it is about 65%. The United Nations (UN)-Habitat issues publications to provide reliable and independent documentation of housing programmes across the world. In its 2020 report on Singapore, the authors made the following points: (a) more than 80% of Singapore residents own and live in public housing provided by HDB; and (b) this addressed the housing unaffordability and accessibility problem that we encountered in the 1960s. Not only that, the quality of public housing in Singapore is high. The hon Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Cheng Hsing Yao spoke eloquently about this and the factors that have contributed to this. It is embedded with various upgrading programmes, at a cost that is borne largely by public funds. There is supportive infrastructure and amenities too like MRT stations, schools, shopping centres, swimming pools, sporting stadia and other facilities. How does this compare with other countries? We need only ask the well-travelled Singaporeans amongst us. The fair-minded will say that we compare very favourably and I fully agree with the hon Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Cheng that Singapore is one of the most liveable countries in the world. The UN-Habitat report is from a reputable international organisation that does not have to humour Singapore. What the hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament have suggested in their Motion is at variance with the report. Now let me outline the difference between the first Motion and the second Motion. The first states aspirations without cost – hence, it is naive. The second requires pain and choice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the invidious task of going after Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, I do not think I can match his energy, even though he is 60 years old and I am born five years later. Please allow me to first deal with the Motion in the name of the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Leong Mun Wai and to contrast it with that standing in the name of the Minister for National Development. On the first Motion, I have no quarrel with the need for this House to review public housing per se, to ensure that public housing is kept affordable, accessible and inclusive for every Singaporean of each generation. The hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested that the second Motion precludes this review notion. I do not think that is the intent. In fact, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself committed in this House that all public policies will be reviewed. But he also said that the values that the PAP Government stands for, that remains firm. And the values embedded in this Motion, about providing our Singaporeans with affordable and accessible housing, taking care of the interest of the current and future generations of Singaporeans – those values, as far as I am concerned, are immutable. I strongly reject the insidious premise of the first Motion; that the review is required “in order” to deliver affordable and accessible housing, which is to say that this Government is not doing so now for the majority of Singaporeans. Respectfully, there is no basis for this allegation. I will show why this first Motion rings hollow and sounds naive. Today, as hon Members before me have said, Singapore has a very high rate of home ownership of 90%. This makes Singapore as having the highest rate of homeownership in the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions. But first, a point of clarification. The hon Minister referred to my PQ and said I asked what was the policy of CPIB, in relation to dealing with foreign bribery vis-à-vis citizens of Singapore and companies. I just want to clarify that my PQ was only in relation to citizens of Singapore – and that is because section 37 of PCA excludes companies. My first supplementary question is whether it may be an opportune time to review section 37 to include legal persons, such as companies, to give better bite to the rationale behind section 37 – dealing with foreign bribery? The second supplementary question concerns the office of the Attorney-General. Here, it is clear that the Attorney-General, in his discretion, made the decision not to proceed with prosecution. Given that he occupies a high constitutional office, the importance of trust between the Attorney-General's Office and the people of Singapore cannot be overstated. For the Judiciary, they can explain their decisions through judgments. I wonder whether structurally anything can be done to allow the Attorney-General to explain his decisions in certain cases, such that the trust between the people and the Attorney-General is always maintained.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note the reasonably good take-up rate of the JGI by about 2,300 ex-offenders. May I ask the hon Minister whether in his view, these ex-offenders had got into good jobs, not just in terms of jobs offering prospects but jobs offering security. And if so, after the expiry of the JGI in March 2023, I wonder whether the Ministry may want to continue provide incentives for ex-offenders to get into such jobs so that not just they benefit, their families benefit, but society-at-large benefits because we will be able to actualise their potential and ensure as far as possible, that they leave their past behind.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek a clarification from the hon Minister, in his response to a point I made in my speech. This concerns the role of a PTIB in investigating the affairs of the bankrupt. The point I sought to make, and I apologise if it was not clear, was that when a PTIB gets the statement of affairs, if the commercial interest is not aligned with public interest, he can just file it, even though with some level of due diligence, he could unearth reasonable suspicion of offences, which then the OA may be interested in to formally investigate and prosecute, depending on the evidence. I wonder whether, in these circumstances, whether PTIBs still have a role. And, if so, how do we align the commercial interests of PTIBs with that of public interest?”
“I wonder if, instead of maintaining a definitive list of information that the OA can allow inspection of it would be better to provide that the list may be expanded to contain information that the hon Minister, in his discretion, may prescribe through subsidiary legislation. In this way, the information that PTIBs need can be provided much faster, which will, in turn, allow for more efficiency and cost reduction. Such information can include the new registered address of the debtor or any other information that may be relevant for the administration of the bankrupt's estate. This information can include names and contact details of related persons for PTIBs to investigate cases of unfair preferences and transactions at undervalue, something that the hon Minister is very well aware of since he was a well-noted lawyer dealing with insolvency work before he joined the front bench. All the above are minutiae in themselves but added together, these little drops make a mighty sea. They make the administration of the insolvency process leaner, simpler and less costly. As a while, they ensure that the PTIB can go about with their duties efficiently, which will in turn allow their fees to be kept as low as possible. If this cannot be done now, perhaps this is a suggestion that can be explored in the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, the public interest is served by a fair administration of all the Government's services to its people. If the private sector can carry out some of this in a reliable way, there is good reason for us to consider this as a viable option. The key is to ensure that we set up an architecture of incentives, so that the PTIBs, even as they pursue private commercial ends, bend to the public interest as their key performance indicator.”
“I suggest that the hon Minister consider prescribing that notices on remuneration may be sent by emails too. This will increase efficiency and reduce disbursements, especially when we have cases involving numerous creditors. I also note that in the format of proofs of debt that creditors are supposed to file, contact details, such as email addresses are already supposed to be provided. Hence, PTIBs should be able to use this information for notification purposes. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the OA to maintain a list of undischarged bankrupts with records of the particulars of the employment history of every undischarged bankrupt, as well as the particulars of his current employment status. The OA may allow any person who needs access to such details, which conceivably will include a PTIB, for the purposes of administering the bankrupt's estate. This is a good move and I support it. The question that arises is what other information that a PTIB may reasonably need for the proper and efficient administration of the bankrupt's estate. One possible area is the registered address of the bankrupt which can obviously change over time. Currently, under section 399(2) of IRDA, a bankrupt is deemed to have informed the OA of the change of his registered address when he makes a report of the change under section 10 of the National Registration Act 1965 (NRA). There is also a deeming provision in section 399(3) of the IRDA which deems service of notice at the registered address as conclusive evidence of the fact of service. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the OA has ready access to the database of registered addresses under the NRA. If I am right, I should point out that PTIBs may not be in a similar position as the OAs.”
“Currently, under section 22 of the IRDA, the OA has a responsibility to investigate the conduct and affairs of the bankrupt, to check if the bankrupt has committed certain offences. This involves a matter of public interest. When the PTIB takes over these duties from the OA, how do we ensure that the PTIB will reasonably discharge these duties? This is a general caveat when using the private sector as a partner to provide public services. While the incentive of the public sector is to safeguard the public interest, the private sector has no such incentive. PTIBs are not, prima facie, remunerated on the basis of the efforts expended to check the conduct and the affairs of the bankrupt. Instead, we must ensure that there are rules and incentives in place to ensure that the commercial interests of the PTIBs are motivated to align with the demands of public interest. For example, we could require specific audits and checks to be conducted on PTIBs. I now turn to the part of the Bill that introduces measures to make it more efficient for PTIBs to conduct their work. This is welcomed. These efficiencies, I believe, will have a direct impact in ensuring that PTIBs' fees will not become excessive. I particularly commend the provision of the default position in clause 3 of the Bill allowing creditors to have deemed to consent to the remuneration sought by the PTIB in the "prescribed manner", if they did not raise objection within the prescribed time. This resolves a big problem in practice, because creditors often tend not to revert timeously on such issues, making it difficult for PTIBs to be paid. With respect to what is meant by "prescribed manner", I take it that it is intended to be provided in subsidiary legislation.”
“I am glad to note the hon Minister's point, that the OA is expected to give his consent in cases of public interest. May I ask what would be the considerations before the OA provides consent to be the trustee? The hon Minister gave some examples. I have in mind situations where petitioning creditors or debtors cannot get practitioners to be appointed as PTIBs, despite their best efforts or having regard to their specific financial circumstances. Would the OA be willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether it would be in the public interest to provide consent to be the trustee of the bankrupt's estate? This question is related to my earlier point on the possible financial hardship on the debtor. If the difficulty relates to debtors facing financial hardship and being unable to pay for the PTIBs, what will be their recourse? Another area that I seek clarification on is the OA's role where the office of the PTIB becomes vacant, be it as a result of resignation, death and so on. To my understanding, the OA will have to step in to take over as trustee until the vacancy is filled. This provision that requires this – section 45 of the IRDA – is unaffected by the amendment Bill. Having regard to the objective of this Bill, which is for the OA to exit the arena of administration of a bankrupt's estate, save when it is in public's interest, may I please ask how it is proposed that the OA will deal with such situations? One final area which I want to touch on before moving to my next point concerns aligning the commercial interests of PTIBs with the aims under IRDA in relation to the administration of the bankrupt's affairs.”
“They can also benefit from being assigned cases which are referred to as "meaty" cases, where there is a good prospect for PTIBs to recover substantial assets and monies that form part of the estate of the bankrupt for distribution to creditors and get their costs to be paid from, as a matter of priority from the estate. For non-ICs, I believe the considerations will be materially different. They cannot promise large volumes like institutions, such as retail banks. How can we then ensure that the costs of petitioning creditors who are non-ICs are kept reasonable by reason of the privatisation move? One group of people I am particularly concerned about are debtors who have just cause to apply for bankruptcy to avail themselves of the protection of bankruptcy laws. They may be put in a more difficult position. These debtors who apply to be bankrupts, by definition, do not have much money. Currently, under IRDA, only creditors are allowed to apply for a practitioner to be appointed as PTIBs. In this Bill, it is proposed that debtors must also get practitioners to be PTIBs. Should the market move against them such that they are required to pay more than the current sum of $1,850 for the appointment of PTIBs, this may stymie the debtors' efforts to get the protection of the bankruptcy laws. Next, I would be grateful for the hon Minister's clarification on the circumstances in which the OA is expected to administer the estate of the bankrupt. In clause 2 of the amendment Bill, it is provided that the OA may consent to be the trustee of the bankrupt's estate. I did not see any elaboration on the circumstances in which the OA may give consent in the explanatory statement to the Bill.”
“For this system to work, however, we must be sure that the private sector has the capacity to provide such a function at a high level of competency and at affordable cost. This means that we need to ensure a strong supply of licensed insolvency practitioners who would be willing to undertake such assignments for fees that are not prohibitive. Both outcomes, of course, can come about purely as a result of the operations of the free market. But this is by no means assured. This is where we need to be mindful about the market conditions and take the necessary steps to strike a proper balance. On one hand, there should be sufficient commercial incentives to ensure that there is a ready pool of practitioners to tap on for such work. On the other hand, we need to ensure that costs are kept reasonable and the statutory objectives under the IRDA, particularly that those in relation to the investigation of the bankrupt's affairs are met. Currently, there are several firms providing PTIB services for ICs. Their practice, generally, is not to ask for any deposit from the ICs to cover their costs. They rely on the $1,850 deposit placed with the OA when the person brings a bankruptcy application. The provision of this sum itself is mandated under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Official Assignee's Fees) Regulation 2020. The idea is to work within the deposit amount. To make the model financially sustainable, the PTIBs engage in what can be described as a volume game. By agreeing to working within the deposit amount, the practitioners can be assured of a significant volume of cases from the ICs for which the practitioners may be appointed as PTIBs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am a partner of a firm which has an insolvency practice. I support the aims of the Bill. In my speech, I will focus on one of the aims that the hon Minister articulated, that is, to mandate the appointment of PTIBs in, generally, all bankruptcy cases. The key motivation behind this aim is to provide a more efficient use of the Public Service by focusing on the regulatory role of the Government and decanting non-regulatory service functions to the private sector. I see this proposal as the final move in an orderly transformation of insolvency and bankruptcy processes that commenced in 2016. The hon Minister has already mentioned it in his speech and I need only mention two milestones. First, for corporate insolvencies, the Official Receiver has already stopped being the liquidator of last resort. In his place, private liquidators are appointed by the Court. With respect to bankruptcy applications by ICs, such as retail banks, ICs are required to apply for PTIBs to be appointed to administer the bankruptcy, instead of the OA. Seen against this background, it makes sense to complete the transformation by requiring that for all other bankruptcies – I understand they are about 60% of bankruptcies, in respect of which PTIBs have not been appointed – PTIBs be now appointed too. Through this, we will be able to gain the full extent of the efficiencies by redeploying resources under the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office to perform regulatory functions. In essence, we are placing the core of the Government's function within the Civil Service while allow the private sector to take care of some of its service functions.”
“This is something that we are very proud of in our SCDF officers. With regard to the late SGT1 Edward Go, this is something that I would like to share, even though the investigations are still ongoing. Like what the Member shared earlier, we feel the loss of the late SGT1 Edward. Just like the rest, all NSFs need to be certified medically fit and complete the relevant training and courses, prior to deployment at the frontline. During his training as a firefighter, SGT1 Edward Go attained the "Gold" standard for his Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) and fared well in the other mandatory course requirements, including achieving an "A" grading for his Breathing Apparatus Proficiency Test (BAPT). His performance, in fact, was among the top 25% in his cohort. Like the rest, he would have gone through the journey like any other SCDF NSF. In fact, when he was posted to the Central Fire Station in May 2022, he had attended to nearly 60 fire and rescue calls. So, he was an officer with some level of experience as well.”
“In fact, I visit SCDF fire stations as well as some of the set-ups regularly, and this is something I have noticed. The peer support, the relationship and that journey that someone goes through – whether for NSFs or Regulars – is so important. The juniors will look up to the seniors, not only between the Regulars and the NSFs, but also between the NSFs together – they look up to their seniors and they want to see how they can play their part. After posting to a fire station, they will be assigned support appliances. They will not straightaway go to the frontline, as in, to fight the fire. This is the opportunity to give them the time to settle down and get to know their Rota. During this time, their supervisors will observe the NSFs in the daily shifts, watch them perform during drills and training to assess their suitability, competency and confidence to be placed on turn-out, on the main fire engines and Red Rhinos. This is where they are most likely to be on-scene, earlier than the rest. We also look at the composition of the crew, where we carefully balance it. The supervisor will ensure that there is a good mix of experienced and seniority, while still giving NSF firefighters the opportunity to grow from accumulating turn-out experience. Indeed, just like many of the vocations which require practical experience, the only way for all firefighting personnel – whether Regular or NSF – to build their experience is on-the-job training. This takes place under close supervision with multiple layers of safety. So, we ensure the training that they receive, the PPE that they wear and the colleagues they turn-out with. Like I shared earlier, this is something which is very obvious when you speak and talk to them about operations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I am sure hon Members of this House would join me to express our profound sadness over the demise of SGT1 Edward Go in the line of duty, in his efforts to keep Singapore safe and secure. And I hope that the family of SGT1 Edward Go would be supported whilst they come to terms with their loss and, in time, heal. My question for the hon Minister of State is in relation to the deployment of NSmen. The Minister of State mentioned that the ratio of NSmen deployment for that particular incident was 40:60, 60% Regulars. Having regard to the fact that NSmen generally have less experience than Regulars, may I ask whether there is a certain strategy to better protect NSmen? And in respect of SGT1 Edward Go, I understand that investigations are ongoing, but will the hon Minister of State reveal the extent of training that he had for the fire incident that he was called to fight? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. An NSF's journey with SCDF starts from his enlistment into the SCDF where he receives basic, and subsequently, vocational training appropriate for his PES condition. So, at the start of his enlistment, we already looked at it on how that journey is going to be. NSFs who are assigned in the operational roles, as I shared earlier, are given robust and realistic training. They also use proper PPE and equipment that are common to their fire station. From their time in the CDA, their instructors will closely monitor them and look at their progress and help build their confidence. The relationship, the camaraderie and peer support are also vital parts of the culture and overall journey.”
“Sir, I apologise if I was not clear in my earlier question. The point is this: you have a category called Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance for Comcare. I have heard from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry does not make a distinction in relation to the timelines for the review. My point is whether MSF could consider imposing timelines, or rather, coming up with appropriate timelines, so there is no mismatch in expectations of families getting assistance and the expectations of the Ministry in relation to assessing whether or not continued care and assistance is needed. I have now, situations whereby families are coming up and saying, "Look, my situation has not changed and yet, I have to come back to MSF to submit my case for review." That presents a waste of time and effort.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MSF is prepared to review its system to set timelines for the three categories of cases: short-term assistance, medium-term assistance and long-term assistance? The reason why I suggest this is because then there will be efficiency in relation to provision of time-bound support for these families and it will also result in the saving of manpower and the time on the part of MSF officers in assessing each case to see whether the help should be renewed.”
“Say, for example, a government in the future decides to banish a citizen, that is a fundamental liberty under Article 13, on the basis that he does not subscribe to a marriage between a man and a woman, or he enters into a marriage, which falls outside the definition in the Women's Charter. How can we then protect such a person from being banished? Can the Courts exercise its judicial powers to provide a solution for such a person? I would welcome the hon Minister's views on this matter. Sir, my point is a simple one, that we should put sufficient weight on this, but not be too heavy handed so as to allow it to trump all fundamental rights, as even on matters of national security, we have been careful not to take such a sweeping approach. Sir, the repeal is the correct thing to do. It reflects Singapore's collective will towards equality as well as the values and realities of our times. We have also, at the same time, captured the wide agreement that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It is an elegant accommodation and a uniquely Singapore way, using hon Minister Masagos' words, of expressing the will of our people through this House.”
“I hope we see the difference in approach here – on matters of national security, we are careful enough to pick out specific exclusions because there are at least three individual rights that are so important so as to be able to stand up against issues pertaining to national security. Why then, is there a need to adopt a blunderbuss approach in preserving legislation or Government action dealing with the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Would it not be possible for the Government to identify specific provisions just as what was done for Article 149, and as the hon Minister said, Article 39(a), which deals with GRCs. Personally, I prefer such an approach. I heard the hon Minister as saying that, the reason why he wants to have such a shield is because we may not know of an argument that can be raised in the future. But we are dealing with fundamental liberties and one of the reasons for having fundamental liberties is to curb excess of power, or have a situation whereby there will be an irrational use of power. As a matter of principle, we should be careful in providing for derogations to fundamental liberties of an individual as it would ordinarily be inimical to the concept of democracy and rule of law. Also, may I ask whether it is intended that the Court's powers of judicial review of Government action on the traditional grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety be ousted? As I heard the hon Minister, he mentioned that that is not the intent. But then, maybe to articulate my point, let me give an illustration.”
“So, it is best that we, in this House, continue to take the lead to set policies that have socio-political ramifications to preserve the legitimacy of our system of Government, particularly our judiciary. I have a query in relation to the proposed Article 156(3) and (4) of the Constitution. Part 4 of the Constitution lists the fundamental liberties. These are described in the 1957 Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, from which our Singapore Constitution was modelled on, as "fundamental individual rights which are generally regarded as essential conditions for a free and democratic way of life". There are eight rights enumerated in Part 4. They include safeguards against liberty of a person, slavery, forced labour, protection against retrospective criminal laws, equal protection of all persons before the law, prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement, freedom of speech, religion and education. The basic idea in this Constitution is to protect individuals' rights by vesting in the Courts the power to strike down legislation passed by this House or Government action should they offend the fundamental liberties stated in this Constitution. It is proposed that the entire Part 4 be excluded from application in relation to both a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and an exercise of executive authority based on such a definition of marriage. In contrast, when it comes to laws against subversion and emergency powers, Article 149(1) of the Constitution specifically identifies five provisions that are to be excluded from Part 4.”
“In the US, we saw the swinging of the pendulum from one end to the other just about five months ago when the federal right of choice to abort, established in a 1973 case, was overturned by a majority in the US supreme court in favour of restoring the states' power to outlaw abortion. This has caused a furore. Based on a September 2022 Pew Research Centre survey, Americans' ratings of the supreme court are now as negative as – and more politically polarised than – at any point in time, during the three decades of polling on the nation's highest court. Such sentiments, undermine the confidence in and the legitimacy of the judiciary. This in turn, this can affect the rule of law. We must avoid it in Singapore. And the way to do it is to ensure that the policy issues that have socio-political ramifications are dealt with firmly in this House. We, in this House, have a much better ability to deal with such thorny issues, as compared to the Courts. As elected representatives, we have a much better pulse on what our people think and what is needed to ensure our nation's cohesiveness. We also have a unique ability to accommodate divergent views and reach a consensus that allows our society to march on and make progress. This is not a fanciful argument. In 2018, the Singapore High Court decided to allow a Singaporean gay man to adopt a son he fathered through a surrogate mother by paying her US$200,000, because amongst others, the Singapore Government had not promulgated then a policy against surrogacy. In discussing this case in this House in January 2019, the hon Minister Mr Desmond Lee in a carefully worded statement, acknowledged that the decision has "evoked a diverse range of emotions and reactions amongst Singaporeans, and raised questions about its implications".”
“We need to forge an inter-generational understanding to keep us together as a society. Our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, pithily put this across in a speech he delivered way back in 1966, about the importance of working with our youths to create an enduring future in the context of multiracial harmony. He said: "The young are so important. We are old. Our values, our attitudes are fixed but the minds of the young are flexible. They come out with innocent minds…And we must give them the values of tolerance, understanding, togetherness and a society which gives everybody a meaningful life. And in that way, we will secure an enduring future for ourselves". Here, we have an opportunity as, currently, based on the same TODAY Youth Survey, three out of five youths support the importance of upholding the definition of marriage as between one man and a woman. This was reportedly attributed to our youths internalising the traditional definition of marriage as a norm. Third, it is about upholding the legitimacy of the democratic system of Government that we have in Singapore. Both the hon Ministers spoke about this. In our Westminster-styled Government, our judiciary is an independent Organ of State that is vested with the judicial power to decide on legal issues without interference from this House or the Executive. Being an unelected body, it is not directly accountable to our people. We have seen examples in other countries where judges are accused of playing politics when deciding on legal issues that have major socio-political ramifications.”
“At the same time, the amendments to the Constitution in this House makes it clear that the repeal of section 377A will not affect the important institution of marriage, as between a man and a woman, and the Government policies promoting traditional families. This is in accord with the views of a significant majority of Singaporeans. There are important lessons that can be drawn from the Government's approach in this House to deal with this issue. I wish to highlight three. First, it is about ensuring that our nation for now and I hope, for at least the next 20 years, will continue to be united and stable and not fail to hold because of this divisive issue. So much of what we do as a country depends on our unity and stability. We cannot afford to lose that. We do this by making the political accommodation that these Bills collectively represent, something that the hon Prime Minister spoke about at some length during his National Day Rally 2022. What we need to guard against is the spectre of identity politics with the emphasis on a "all or nothing mindset". If that happens in Singapore, I fear that it may be the beginning of the end of Singapore's cohesive social compact. Second, it is about acknowledging that our laws reflect the changing realities of our times. This includes respecting the voices of all sections of society, including those of our youths – their voices on their vision and aspirations for Singapore. Our youths shape the future of our country. Based on the TODAY Youth Survey 2022 published in TODAY on 15 November 2022, about two-thirds of our young adults agreed that the repeal of a law criminalising gay sex represents a step towards a more inclusive society. These are our millenials and Gen Z-ers. This is a sizeable majority.”
“I just want to clarify that while the whip is not lifted for the People's Action Party, it does not prevent any Member of Parliament from my party to speak his views and I will shortly speak my views too. The whip is basically a system to deal with voting and that is separate and distinct from clearly and honestly expressing our views. On my view, I can be relatively brief. This is because I had already articulated my views on this matter in 2018 when I was interviewed by CNA. Then, I stated my support for the repeal of section 377A. I said that anyone, regardless of his sexual orientation, is deserving of equal treatment, dignity and respect. No one should be treated as social outcasts. I also advocated a holistic review of the matter, before any legislative decision is made, to address the legitimate concerns that the repeal of section 377A may have an impact on important institutions such as marriage and family. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the carefully calibrated provisions in these Bills today. Repealing section 377A is the right thing to do. Homosexual males in consenting relationships will no longer be viewed as criminals and we would have taken a decisive step in removing the stigma that they previously faced. This is the main principle underlying the repeal. I am indebted to the hon Minister Shanmugam for painstakingly reviewing the provision based on materials stretching back to the 16th century. Listening to him, it seems to me that the legislative objective behind the equivalents of section 377A is also rather obscure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one might be tempted to say that this issue is one of the most polarising and contentious socio-political issues that this House has ever dealt with. The heavy correspondence that I received and numerous meetings that I had with my constituents on this matter reflect that. I am sure I am not alone in this. Let us be clear though. Should these Bills be passed, it does not mean that the underlying issues will simply go away. It will not. At the same time, the fact that we are considering these Bills, does signify a potential for this House to express its collective will and I heard the hon Opposition Leader say "collective values" as well, across party lines, and decide on the basis of what is in the greater good of our country. This is what representative politics means. Members of Parliament deciding on matters based on national interest and public good, not their personal interests. The well-known politician and philosopher, Sir Edmund Burke, said that parliament is not a congress of ambassadors. Members of parliament will have to decide based on national interests and not just based on the opinions of their constituents. This is where our involvement here becomes all the more important, because we cannot decide just on the basis of our personal views. We have to decide on the basis of what is the national interest, how best can we take Singapore forward and ensure that the future of Singaporeans will always remain bright. That is the issue. What is my view with respect to this issue? I understand from the Leader of the Opposition that he has decided to lift the whip.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have two supplementary questions for the hon Minister of State. First, I wonder whether the Police is minded to develop bespoke regulations to deal with different types of crowds. For example, a crowd at a rock concert would behave differently from a crowd at a place of worship. And this is something that is found in scientific literature and the practical considerations are different. So, I wonder whether the Police could consider this suggestion. Second, on the point about voice amplification made by the hon Minister of State, I wonder whether the Police is minded to leverage on technology. For example, issuing SMS text messages at a particular area so that all the people in the crowd would get the right message and act in accordance with the Police advice.”
“We ask this at this difficult time because we truly believe that it will give us a fairer and more progressive way of financing our government and build a stronger foundation for our nation. That is political courage. [Applause.]”