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 14 of 25.
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to give notice that the hon Members of Parliament Christopher de Souza and Lim Biow Chuan are also desirous of speaking on the Motion standing in my name under Standing Order 2(8)(b). I, therefore, propose to share the 20 minutes of speaking time allotted to me, with them. I would like to express my gratitude in advance to them for joining me to speak on this Motion. May I proceed as proposed, Madam?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I join the hon Minister in expressing our sadness to the affected families and our wishes for them to overcome their grief, as well as our wishes to the affected students, teachers, staff and Principal of River Valley High School in overcoming the tragedy that befell them. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon Minister for his personal leadership in handling this tough incident. I know that I speak for a number of hon Members of Parliament as well. He can be assured that he has our full support in his endeavour to make River Valley High School emerge stronger and the rest of the school system stronger as well. Sir, I have a question in relation to making mental resilience a desired outcome of education for all students. As the Minister mentioned, already, certain subjects or certain programmes in schools are geared towards this. He had also shared that if he were to just target those students who are susceptible to mental issues, there would be an issue of stigma, they may not come forward. So, why do we not put mental resilience as a strategic objective in school and ensure that our children, when they emerge from the education system, are mentally resilient to deal with the challenges of the future? This will resonate throughout because when they enter the workforce, they will be mentally resilient; when they become parents, they will be mentally resilient; and so on.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive response and I also want to record my thanks to the hon Member Dr Tan Wu Meng for raising this question because the Bukit Batok Bus Interchange lies within the constituency where I serve. Sir, the accident has caused serious concerns among some of my residents, particularly the aspect, where the bus fell two metres onto its side. I recognise that the Interchange itself was built in around 1987. I wonder whether LTA is minded to look into the design, having regard to the fact that buses have become bigger. Also, there may be a need to provide for sufficient safety margins and also extra safety measures to ensure that should something untoward happen, at least there are some structures in place to make sure that the pedestrians', commuters' lives and of course, that of our bus captains', would also not be impacted.”
“Such information is not easily accessible by members of public, even though these are matters of public record since convictions are almost always pronounced in open Court. Currently, the Court already has the power to revoke the LPA or direct that the LPA not to be registered on this ground if the conviction post-dates his appointment as donee. The presumption here, I gather, is that the donor would know or act with reasonable diligence to establish the proposed donee’s background beforehand. But, in practice, this is not necessarily the case. We know all too often how we shirk tasks that have high cognitive tax, such as reading the fine print of contracts and policies, and I am speaking as one who is paid to read fine print, even though I must admit I do this at work but not at home. I would be grateful if the hon Parliamentary Secretary could please clarify what is the legislative intent in circumscribing the PG’s role to just matters where it is suspected that fraud or undue pressure is used on the donor. Before I sit down, I would like to take this opportunity to join the hon Parliamentary Secretary in his clarion call to fellow Singaporeans who have not done so to make LPAs so that they can minimise the trouble to their loved ones who have to bear the responsibility of caring for them should they lose their mental capacity. I have.”
“This arises from the proposed amendments to give the Public Guardian (PG) the power to: (a) interview the donor if there are grounds to suspect there is fraud or undue influence to induce a donor to make an LPA or to appoint a particular person to be his donee; and (b) disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which his prospective donee has already or will be appointed as donee on the same grounds. A number of hon Members of Parliament who spoke before me also dealt with this provision including hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. Let me say that, in principle, I do not have an issue with the proposed amendments. I applaud the move to enlarge the Public Guardian’s responsibilities so as to better protect the donor’s interests at the outset before an LPA is made. I do not see this as an extension of duties; the PG taking over the responsibility of ensuring that the donee is a suitable person. That responsibility must sit squarely with the donor. However, I think it is good that the PG provides the necessary support to the donor in terms of giving relevant information and putting the donor on notice before he makes the important decision on the choice of his donee. My short query is in relation to why the role of the PG in safeguarding the donor’s interest before the registration of the LPA cannot be expanded beyond fraud and undue influence to also include general suitability of the proposed donee. For example, it may serve the donor’s interest if the PG shares with the donor information as to whether the proposed donee has any criminal convictions dealing with theft, cheating, extortion, criminal breach of trust or an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. Death and taxes are both as unwelcome, yet both are an essential part of our lives. We have to think, plan and eventually execute the provisions for our mortality. The amendments we debate today will enable the Office of Public Guardian to digitalise the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) process. I see this as an important first step that will provide Singaporeans and their families with better support in dealing with life’s vicissitudes pertaining to loss of mental capacity, terminal illness, end of life and distribution of assets to loved ones post-life. I made the call for digitalisation of LPAs and Wills on 7 April 2020 in this House when we were debating the COVID-19 (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I had also made calls to modernise and simplify the probate processes for several years now. I do hope that in the near future lay persons will be able to access digital platforms to make not only LPAs but digital wills, advance medical directives and applications for Grants of Probate or Letters of Administration for straightforward probate matters without fuss, with little costs and from the comfort of their homes. That would be real and significant progress. At the same time, I do recognise that we still have a digital divide in our community and hon Member Ms Denise Phua spoke cogently about this point, drawing from surveys done by IMDA. I, therefore, would like to join her and hon Member of Parliament Mr Seah Kian Peng in their call to provide tangible support to persons who are not digitally savvy. I only have one short query and this is to clarify the legislative policy concerning the role of the Public Guardian in safeguarding the donor’s wellbeing and interests even before an LPA is made by him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two short points of clarification. One, the hon Senior Minister of State mentioned that I had, in my speech, spoken about migrant workers being transported in lorries. I would just like to clarify that I did not do so in my speech. Second one, again, a short point of clarification, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor mentioned about the point that I raised in my speech which refers to the fact that there is no offence linking an owner of a vehicle who was lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicle. The point I actually made was a bit different. I recognise that there are provisions in that regard, but my point was a bit more involved. I was talking about a case where an owner is lackadaisical in maintaining his vehicles which led to a fatal accident or injuries. That is the point I was making but I do not need any response from the learned Senior Minister of State.”
“In the proposed amendments, it is also provided that the owner should designate at least one of the responsible officers to ensure that a proper record is kept – it is a personal responsibility. The personal responsibility is reposed on the chairperson, managing director or the company secretary of a company or positions analogous to any of these offices. As the hon Minister of State mentioned, failure to do so attracts liability, criminal liability. With respect, this seems rather draconian. What is the rationale of making the chairperson, managing director or company secretary personally responsible for maintaining a proper record of a vehicle usage? Would it not be sufficient to require that the board appoint an employee to be a responsible person? Is it possible to write in a provision to state that the responsibilities on these senior officers are discharged, once such an appointment is made? Mr Speaker, Sir, today, when our movements are curbed because of the COVID-19 safe management measures, we better appreciate the true value of easy mobility. Safety, respect for all users and a thoughtful, fair approach must govern the use of our roads. This Bill gives us the promise of a step in the right direction. It solves some legal issues, but the need for public education, improving the safety culture and deepening the respect amongst road users – all those remain work-in-progress. I support the Bill. 2.11 pm”
“This affects the viability of parents escorting their children with PABs, especially school children in Primary schools. I would have thought that, if anything, it would be the other way around because the motorcyclist is likely to be travelling faster than a PAB rider. Second, vehicle forfeiture in situations where the motorists engage in speed trials. I support the stiffening of penalties for illegal speed trials. They put other motorists and road users to great danger. My question concerns the proposed section 117(7) of the Road Traffic Act which makes the vehicle forfeiture regime non-mandatory where such vehicles are used for speed trials. It is stated in the provision that the Court "need not" make an order for forfeiture where the person who committed the offence is not the owner of the vehicle and he used it without the consent of the owner. How about a situation where the owner did not know that his vehicle was being used by the offender but he was wilfully blind? In other words, he suspected, he could have asked but he did not. However, he did not specifically know that his vehicle was used by the offender. I would be grateful for a clarification on the policy reason for the proposed change, as I understand the original reason for imposing mandatory forfeiture is to deprive would-be offenders from easily accessing vehicles for commission of offences. Third and finally, I come to the definition of a "responsible officer" under the proposed section 81 of the Road Traffic Act that the hon Minister of State outlined. Under the proposed section 81, where the owner of the vehicle is a company, a partnership or an unincorporated body, it is the owner's responsibility to keep a proper record of the vehicle's usage and the persons driving the vehicle. So far so good.”
“Notwithstanding that, I think it is safe to assume that a significant percentage of these fires are caused by poorly maintained vehicles. I am not alone. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) thinks so as well. Its officers carry the buck of extinguishing such fires on roads and putting their own lives at risk and I think we should listen to them. In its own advisories, it states as follows: (a) most vehicle fires in Singapore occurred while the vehicles are travelling on the road; (b) the primary cause of these fires is due to ignition sources, such as overheating and electrical faults within the engine compartment. SCDF also highlighted the need to service the vehicles regularly at authorised vehicle workshops to prevent vehicles from catching fire. It is time to make vehicle owners criminally responsible for fatalities and injuries arising from accidents caused by their poorly maintained vehicles. It is also time for vehicle owners and workshop owners to be criminally liable if they have made illegal modifications to vehicles that are involved in accidents causing fatalities and injuries where these modifications played a contributing factor to the accidents. I believe this is the point that hon Member Mr Derrick Goh would expand on in his own speech. With that, let me come to the Bill proper. I have three points to make. First, on the point about ensuring pillion riders wear safety helmets, I obviously support that. The issue I seek clarification on is the age of pillion riders. Under paragraph 36 of Road Traffic Rules, it is stipulated that no person riding a motorcycle or scooter on a road shall carry any child below 10 years of age. In comparison, pillion riders on PABs must be at least 16 years old. Why is there a difference in age?”
“I also articulated the need for legislation to cover the area. The Road Traffic Act focuses on driver conduct. The Workplace Safety and Health Act focuses on vehicular accidents causing injuries to the employer's own workers. Neither applies to accidents that caused injury or death to third parties, owing to mechanical failure. We might argue, as the hon Senior Minister of State who replied to me then did, that we may rely on the Penal Code which makes it a crime for a person, who, through his rash or negligent act, causes death. The same provisions may make corporations liable too. The problem, however, is that this is a general provision and a blunt instrument when it comes to a vehicle owner or operator in charge of maintenance. What is needed is a specific provision that makes it clear that a vehicle owner is liable so long as the lack of maintenance played a contributory factor, it is not necessary that it plays an effective factor, which is the Penal Code's requirement. What I am arguing for, therefore, is a lower threshold on which liability can be proven. I also pointed out that it would be easy for a corporation to escape liability because of the absence of a provision in law to impute liability to corporations as a result of a default on the part of its employees for not maintaining the vehicles. Just earlier this year, I asked the hon Minister for Transport what is the average number of vehicles that caught fire per year in the last five years owing to mechanical failure. The hon Minister informed that there are 200 vehicular fires per year but for the majority of the fire incidents, it would be difficult to pinpoint the cause of the fire.”
“Mr Speaker, few of us in the House today would have arrived without being at some risk – of having an accident on the road, of being grazed, or bumping someone's fender, or something even more serious. Over the years, TP has done exemplary work and, with its partners and the cooperation of the public, brought down road traffic fatalities significantly. This is the point that the hon Minister of State made just a few minutes ago. It is clear that there has been a downward trend over the past 10 years, even discounting last year where there was a circuit breaker imposed. However, elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists continue to be involved in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents resulting in injuries or death. Motorcyclists were involved in more than 63% of fatal accidents in 2020. Half of the fatal accidents involving elderly pedestrians were due to jaywalking. It is clear that legislation must not be the only policy instrument to protect our most vulnerable on the roads. Instead, there must be greater awareness, education and behavioural change. These informal norms work together with legislation to instil in each road user a culture of safety and mutual respect. It is against this context that I now proceed to review the Bill, which I support. I start, however, by highlighting an area involving road safety that the Bill does not cover. In August 2018, I spoke in Parliament about the need to hold vehicle owners and operators of vehicles involved in fatal accidents owing to mechanical failure liable – and criminally liable – for these accidents. This liability must be commensurate with the weight of consequences – I had highlighted specific cases where death was caused because of poorly maintained vehicles.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I also would like to thank the two hon Ministers for their detailed Ministerial Statements. The point made by Minister Lawrence Wong about not engaging in xenophobia is something that chimes with me. Sir, hon Members would know that there was a serious incident that was reported in the press yesterday that strikes at the very core of what we are as a nation. It was alleged that a Singaporean woman of Indian descent was assaulted by a man who used racial slurs and kicked her for not wearing a mask. This and another racial incident come in the wake of the community spread, once again, of COVID-19, this time, attributable to a variant coming from the Indian subcontinent. The tension appears to be fanned by posts with false or misleading narratives in the social media and circulated through WhatsApp and other platforms. I seek clarification from the Minister for Home Affairs for his assessment of the security situation arising from these racial incidents connected to the pandemic. What steps will the Government take to nip this in the bud to address the situation?”
“Or, alternatively, a situation where the Court exercises the power under section 105A or section 140(5) of the Land Titles Act to vary or extinguish an easement or restriction over a servient tenement on the basis that they are obsolete and such burdens impede the development of the land. In such situations, by a stroke of the pen of the judge, the land value may increase too. Again, my reading of the definition of "chargeable consent" is that such situations fall outside the Bill. In my respectful view, if my reading is correct, there is little difference between an administrator lifting a restriction and the Court lifting a restriction that results in an increase in land value. Both should produce the same consequence. Alternatively, we should separately capture part of the increased value arising from Court decisions for public good. Sir, let me conclude. In Singapore, land is a vehicle through which Singaporeans' wealth is built and transmitted. It is our duty to ensure that we make the best rules possible to optimise its use and to distribute the gains fairly. I believe the Bill represents a step in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister's responses to my points of clarification. I support the Bill. 8.16 pm”
“There are similar pieces of legislation in many parts of the world, including the United Kingdom. I seek some clarifications on the Bill with a view to understand the scope of the Bill. First, will the DP system continue to operate outside the lifting of restrictive covenants? For example, when dealing with remnant land which is not capable of independent development because of the small size or shape, but has amalgamation potential which can bring out an enhancement in land value. What will be the situation where the planning authority allows for amalgamation of land plots that has the effect of increasing the land value of the remnant land? From my perusal of what constitutes “chargeable consent” under the Bill, such situations seem to fall outside the Bill. In contrast, a Land Betterment Charge may be levied arising from chargeable consent given in relation to sub-division of any land, even if there is no development on it, giving rise to an increase in its land value. If my reading is correct, may I please ask: why is the Government not minded to bring such a situation under the Bill since the intent of the Bill is to consolidate the concepts of DC and DP under one single Bill? Also, may I clarify that the Government will continue with the current practice to charge DP in such situations? Second, I would like to understand the applicability of the Bill vis-à-vis decisions of the Court that may have the effect of enhancing land value. Let us take an example where the Court makes a declaration that the burden of an easement over a servient tenement has been abandoned. As a consequence, the land value of the servient tenement may increase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while urban planners in most parts of the world are accustomed to planning for swaths of land, in our small Singapore, land is counted out inch by niggardly inch. As a matter of public interest, land here – those pieces that we have agreed to be developed – should be developed to its optimal potential. Where the Government allows for land to be developed more optimally, its value, in most circumstances, will tend to increase. This Bill deals with the increased value arising from consent on the part of the public authorities. The Land Betterment Charge represents a tax to divert part of the increased value, created by the decision of the public body, for public good. The logic of this is that the value created by the decision of a public body must benefit the public. To share the increase in the value of land with the public is not a new concept. Since Independence in 1965, Singapore has a Development Charge (DC) system, as mentioned by the hon Minister, under the Planning Act. It is a tax that is payable when planning permission is granted to carry out development projects that increases the allowable intensity or allows a change in zoning that increase the value of land. Singapore also has a Development Premium (DP) system which works similarly. A DP is levied, as a matter of contract, unlike DC which is a tax, by the Government on the developer in return for the Government lifting title restrictions that will have the effect of increasing the value of the land. This Bill consolidates these concepts under one Bill. This is an elegant solution to consolidate the bases for taxation and the levying of a charge arising from increase in land value because a public authority agrees to lift restrictions to enable a better utility of the land.”
“And it is understandable, because borrowing always entails a risk, just as the fruits of spending are always alluring. But I am satisfied that the safeguards that the hon Deputy Prime Minister highlighted are safeguards that will stand us in good stead. So, notwithstanding my comments, Sir, I support the Bill. 5.51 pm”
“I respectfully seek a clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister on this matter. The second point I wish to make is in relation to our commitment to green bonds. The hon Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned in February 2021 that Singapore will issue green bonds on select public infrastructure projects, with up to $19 billion of public sector green projects already identified. Today, he mentioned that one of the objectives of SINGA is to build a safe, green, liveable environment. To further encourage sustainability efforts, would the Government be minded to stipulate at least a minimum percentage of SINGA bonds that will be green? This will have a salutatory effect of ensuring the high percentage of infrastructural projects being undertaken in Singapore with sustainable measures in place. On to my second point about the realities of implementation. What about projects that may, for one reason or another, be aborted? For instance, when there is a change in government. We cannot predict the future, but we have seen examples all over the world. One government may come in and say it wishes to build a wall. Another government may say no. Closer to home, one government may say "build a high-speed railway system"; another government may decide not to do it. Would it not be prudent to work in a requirement that the government of the day which wishes to abandon infrastructural projects funded by SINGA bonds must ensure that it is able to finance the abortive costs from its current revenue? Sir, I conclude. The logic behind this Bill is compelling, but I sense nervousness in the speeches of the hon Members, such as Mr Edward Chia, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har.”
“What are the infrastructure developments we should send to be settled by our children and our children's children? Here, I would respectfully submit that it is safer and more prudent for us to invest in soft infrastructure as much as we can and settle the bill ourselves. But when it comes to infrastructure developments which lasts for generations, to achieve – in the words of Prof Hoon Hian Teck – intergenerational distributive justice, then it makes sense to consider the format that we have in the SINGA Bill. There are two other safeguards which I thought was laudatory: the gross borrowing limit of $90 billion, which is about 20% of our Singapore's GDP, as well as the interest threshold of $5 billion per year and this limits the Government's ability to borrow if interest rates go up. I have two points to make. First on the nature and the structure of the bonds and, second, on the realities of implementation. First, on the nature and structure of the bonds. In this regard, I have two points to make. First, the interplay between the constitutional safeguards – and the hon Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the Reserves Protection Framework – and SINGA. As mentioned by the hon Deputy Prime Minister, Article 144 of the Constitution is engaged, and he highlighted that the in-principle approval of the President has been obtained for the passing of this Bill. And it was specifically mentioned that Her Excellency agreed to a borrowing limit of $90 billion. My question relates to the workings of the procedure. Say, for example, the Bill is passed and the Government intends to issue bonds. Would the Government come back to Parliament for a resolution to be passed and would it still be subject to the discretionary approval of the President?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The logic behind it is compelling. The current proposal presents an opportunity to arbitrage – we can make more with our capital in our reserves, generating returns to fund our social programmes, as compared to the cost of borrowing. So, it makes sense to borrow under these prevailing circumstances where there is low interest rate and we enjoy a good credit rating. Notwithstanding that, circumstances can change. And in that regard, I am happy to note the Government's safeguards built into this Bill. One safeguard is that the infrastructure developments must last for at least 50 years. I listened intently to the speech of the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim when he argued that infrastructure should be extended to not just hard infrastructure, but also soft infrastructure. And by that, he meant an investment in health, education, accumulation of knowledge and human capital. While I listened to him, I think there is a lot of agreement, as opposed to disagreement, on the need to invest in these areas. In fact, if we were to reflect back on how the Government has been investing in these areas – things like SkillsFuture, building more hospitals, schools – we can see that that is also part of what the governing party is doing, investing in soft infrastructure. The focus of this Bill, however, is financing infrastructure. And this is where we need to be careful because we are talking about sending a bill to our children, our children's children to settle. And I thought what the hon Member Prof Hoon Hian Teck said was quite compelling because he cautioned that the situation can change. There could be a situation whereby the safe interest rate, in his words, can increase. And this is where I think the rub lies.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note from the hon Senior Minister of State's speech that the Government is looking at the safety of migrant workers being transported in lorries very seriously. The hon Senior Minister of State mentioned about projects being delayed in the course of this pandemic. There is a sense out there in the public, whether rightly or wrongly, that construction projects are being hurried to catch up with lost time. May I ask the hon Senior Minister of State what can be done in partnership with MOM to emphasise the safety message with the construction companies as well as the drivers?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive answer to my PQ. Hon Members would have also read CPIB's annual report 2020, which was presented to Parliament on 21 April 2021. Sir, with your indulgence, please allow me to state that what CPIB has achieved last year and the preceding years with a lean team of just 200 people is commendable. The work to detect and investigate cases of corruption is complex. In most crime cases, there will be an identifiable victim; for example, a person who has been cheated of his monies or whose valuables have been stolen. For corruption, the paradigm is different; not a win-lose situation but a win-win situation involving the giver and the acceptor of bribes. As a result of its work and the support of Singaporeans, Singapore has established a strong brand and culture of being intolerant of corruption. Singapore, Singaporean businesses and Singaporeans enjoy a good reputation overseas for the same reason. For this, all of us in this House owe the men and women of CPIB, past and present, a debt of gratitude. Sir, my supplemental question is two-fold: as CPIB nears its 70th anniversary next year, what steps will it take to entrench the anti-corruption culture in Singapore, especially amongst our younger generations of Singaporeans who may not be as familiar with our past problems with corruption? Next, may I seek an update, if any, on the hon Minister's announcement recently that the legislative levers the CPIB uses, in particular, the Prevention of Corruption Act, are being reviewed to keep them relevant in the fight against corruption?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his answer to my Parliamentary Question. I understand that he mentioned that the Government does not intend to measure the antibody levels of persons as it stands now. May I please ask the reasons for this, given that, at least amongst some quarters, the understanding is that the effectiveness of the vaccination may peter out after several months? Also, would there not be a need to guard against variants and, in particular, the effect of this vaccination against variants?”
“I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for his answer to the PQ. I have a follow-up question in relation to what the hon Senior Minister of State stated regarding the developing of an insurance programme to deal with the 5% of employers saddled with big hospital bills, particularly unexpected large medical bills. I note from the MOM's Addendum to the President's Address that this is a matter that is under consideration. I filed a PQ which was up for answer on the 4 January 2021. And the hon Minister for Manpower mentioned that she is looking into this as well. My question is, when can we expect a response from MOM? Because on the ground, this seems to be an issue, particularly given the fact that we are in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic and there would be situations where workers would need treatment, particularly with ICU stay and all these things, it can add up to quite a bit, beyond the $15,000 threshold.”
“It will be good to understand what has been the outcome of these programmes to date? Do we need others? Relatedly, do we have enough youth workers, and do they receive enough support? What emerging threats does the Minister see among our young people today that we need to guard against? Youth Resilience and Mental Well-being”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, youths continue to feature significantly in the crime trends involving drug abuse, secret societies and criminal activities. Recently, there was also a disturbing report of a youth being self-radicalised to become a terrorist. How do we help such youths through their families and other partners such as schools, self-help groups and social service agencies to build up their resilience to guard against such negative influences, ensure that each of them will be given opportunities to realise their full potential? What has been the outcome of the measures put in place to assist youths at risk thus far? How effective are they? These are the focus areas of my speech. In 2016, the Government put in place the Youth-At-Risk Engagement (YARE) Framework to support youth-at-risk (YAR). It was to have lasted three years, with the aim of helping 900 young people through 10 service providers. These agencies would then be trained and use standardised assessment tools to their work with young people. In 2018, the Government set up the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recividism (NCPR) to oversee national efforts to prevent offending, re-offending and enhance rehabilitation of offenders. The scope of NCPR includes at risk children and youth. I am a member of NCPR. Working with people whether young or old, requires a human-centred approach, being sensitive to specific home contexts as well as the personality of the youth. Our current programmes include mentorship and sports. Mentorship was a topic that the hon Member of Parliament Miss Rachel Ong touched on during the Budget debate last week when she proposed that youths at risk have long-term mentors. I agree with her.”
“Housebreaking is an offence for which the offence is punishable by three years' sentence. So, may I understand what is the AGC policy in relation to such matters where there is hurt in the context of a relationship?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I think his unequivocal Statement, in relation to the fact that qualifications of an offender would not matter in relation to sentencing, will go a long way to assuage members of the public that he were concerned about the sentences imposed on offenders that the hon Minister mentioned. My clarification is on the Sentencing Advisory Council. The hon Minister mentioned that his Ministries will be looking at this. May I ask whether the remit of the Advisory Council would extend to not just offences dealing with hurt or having sexual elements, but really to the entire spectrum of offences, so that members of the public would be able to be apprised as to the sentencing guidelines and this would improve access to justice as well. The second clarification concerns the Attorney General's role. The hon Minister spoke about the case whereby the 22-year-old undergraduate strangled and I think injured his ex-girlfriend's eye as well. I note that, in that case, actually, there were two offences that he committed. The Attorney General, or rather, the Public Prosecutor applied for the criminal trespass charge to be taken into consideration for purpose of sentencing and I also understand that there was no appeal arising from the sentence. Given that the hon Minister mentioned, in answer to the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, that it has been a practice of the AGC to object to rehabilitative and community sentences in relation to such offences, why then was there not an appeal? And in relation to the offence that was taken into consideration, it was criminal trespass but, as I understand, the offence was that he broke into the house of the girlfriend, and the Penal Code has an aggravated form of offence.”
“Our people will be able to rely on the authoritative findings of these institutions to satisfy themselves of the bona fides or otherwise of Government action and that there are, indeed legal limits placed on the powers vested in the Government. This is how the Government should be held accountable. This is what Rule of Law means. And this is how we ensure a bright future for our country.”
“In this regard, I quote the hon the Chief Justice who stated as follows extrajudicially: "In the final analysis, the robustness of a nation's rule of law framework depends greatly on how the other branches view the Judiciary and whether it in turn is able and willing to act honestly, competently and independently." In conclusion, let me say that I am fully aware of the advantage that comes with ensuring that our Executive move speedily, flexibly and effectively to decide matters in the national interest. Our experience as a nation shows that such ability on the part of the Executive is vital given our country's well-known vulnerabilities. I also appreciate that the rule of law should not be viewed a panacea but is a means to an end which is to help to build a fair and just society, a system that works and a vibrant economy that will enable Singaporeans to realise their dreams. I am not advocating a Western style of rule of law that may not suit our circumstances. My basic concern is to address the desire of Singaporeans for greater checks and balances. For statutes containing ouster clauses that do not deal with issues of national security, I would suggest a review. It may well be that for these statutes, we may have to emulate the approach taken in the ISA or the CLTPA or make relevant amendments to the Constitution to clarify the role of the Judiciary in reviewing the ouster clauses passed by the Legislature and the Executive action in question. Ultimately, I believe that ensuring the sunlight of scrutiny on Executive action, be it by the Court or another high office, will strengthen the legitimacy of our laws.”
“This may, amongst others, sanctioning not just the party but the counsel representing the party. There is another reason why I think it is a good time to conduct the review of ouster clauses. There is a recent decision of the Supreme Court we in this House should take note of. In 2019, a five-judge bench of the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Nagaenthran. In that case, the appellant, who was convicted for the capital offence of drug trafficking, sought a judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision not to issue a certificate of cooperation to him. This has an impact on whether the appellant would be imposed a death sentence or have that substituted with life imprisonment. It was argued on behalf of the Public Prosecutor that the provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act allowing the Public Prosecutor the discretion to decide whether to issue the certificate ousts judicial review. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the provision which the Public Prosecutor relied on was not an ouster clause. Significantly, however, the Court observed, as obiter, that if the clause was meant to exclude the Court's jurisdiction even if the Public Prosecutor exceeded his limits of power, that provision "would be constitutionally suspect for being in violation of Article 93 as well as the principle of separation of powers." The Court proceeded to review the Public Prosecutor's action and held that there was no basis to interfere with his decision. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. I accept that the Court in Nagaenthran did not decide on the validity of any ouster clause. However, given the reasoning of the Court, this may be an opportune time for the Government to review its position on ouster clauses in the name of good governance and the rule of law.”
“For example, today, under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the Controller of Work Permits and the Minister use the powers not only to determine whether a non-Singaporean should or should not stay in Singapore – which was the focus of the debate in Parliament, when the clause was first enacted – these powers are also used now vis-a-vis additional developments that have arisen in our local context to penalise employers who have failed to discharge their duties to ensure their employees comply with SHN requirements, breached the Fair Consideration Framework, or treated workers unfairly when terminating their services, for example, disguised retrenchment. For these employers, MOM has withdrawn work pass privileges. In other words, the target of the powers are no longer aliens, but in certain situations, it may extend to Singapore-based businesses and companies. I have absolutely no quarrel with the invocation of the powers against such errant employers. However, given the variety of circumstances in which these powers are currently used, it would be apposite for Parliament to consider whether the original rationale behind the ouster clause should be extended to cover these new circumstances. Personally, I am not convinced with the utility argument that has been advanced in Parliament to justify ouster clauses, that persons subject to the Executive’s order may abuse the Court's process by commencing unmeritorious judicial review action just to frustrate legitimate Government action. I would point out that that can happen even now since there can be judicial review on the narrower ground of procedural propriety. More importantly, our Court is well-equipped to handle unmeritorious cases that amount to an abuse of process.”
“" Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, decisions of the Minister and the Controller of Work Passes in relation to the issuance, suspension and revocation of work passes are not subject to judicial review. Dr Ng Eng Heng, then the Minister for Manpower in 2007, explained its rationale as follows, and I quote, "For consistency, certain provisions that are currently under the Immigration Act are also replicated under this Act, including the exemption of the decisions of the Minister and the Controller of Work Passes in relation to the issuance, suspension and revocation of work passes from judicial review." My concern here does not arise just because judicial review is ousted. I recognise that there could be areas outside the realm of national security where it may well be desirable in national interest for the Executive to act quickly and efficiently. However, what is as important is that we need ensure that powers vested by Parliament on the Executive will not be abused. This will be consistent with Singaporeans' desire that there should be more checks and balances. We also need to explain to Singaporeans why a different approach is mandated when dealing with such matters whereas when it comes to Executive action on important matters, such as public safety, peace and good order under the CLTPA, it may be judicially reviewed. Additionally, from time to time, powers vested with the Executive under statutes that exclude judicial review may be used in an evolving variety of scenarios.”
“Most times, the Parliamentary intention in enacting these ouster clauses is to allow the Executive to move quickly and efficiently and make final and dispositive decisions in national interest. Let me demonstrate this by referring to three statutes: the Charities Act, the Immigration Act and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. The general purpose of the Charities Act is to register charities and regulate the conduct of their fund-raising activities. Under the Charities Act, the Commissioner has the power to prohibit persons from conducting any fund-raising if he is satisfied that the fund raising should not be conducted, generally, in public interest. His decision and that of the Minister, in this regard, is not subject to judicial review save in relation to compliance with any procedural requirement. Senior Minister Teo, in his capacity as Minister of State for Finance, explained in 1994 when moving the Bill as follows, and I quote, "Clause 40 will ensure that the merits of the decision cannot be reviewed. This is to avoid a situation where interested parties can through the Courts frustrate Government's decision to reject an application for a fund-raising permit." Under the Immigration Act, the Government has the power to deal with immigration into and departure from Singapore. Exercise of such power, however, is not subject to judicial review. In justifying this position, the then Minister for Home Affairs, Prof Jayakumar stated in 1993 as follows, and I quote, "The intention of this amendment is that the merits of the immigration decision, that is, whether it is right or wrong, cannot be reviewed. This is to avoid a situation where the Courts can frustrate Government's decision to expel aliens under the Act or other immigration decisions concerning aliens.”
“That, in the scheme of things, is not desirable. In the result, Parliament not only passed the legislation introducing the ouster clause into the ISA but also introduced Article 149(3) of the Constitution that expressly provides that "nothing in Article 93 shall invalidate" anti-subversion legislation, of which ISA is one. That is not to say that the Minister will be given a carte blanche. In lieu of Court scrutiny, both the ISA and the Constitution prescribed safeguards, such as the involvement of an Advisory Board and the elected President. There could also be judicial review on the ground of non-compliance with procedural requirements under the ISA. In short, the ISA does not operate in darkness. There are checks and balances that involve, amongst others, the office of the Elected President. Just a few weeks ago, we saw the Minister for Home Affairs exercise his detention power against a self-radicalised young person professing to be Christian who planned to attack Muslims with a machete at two mosques. Fellow Singaporeans would have been greatly disturbed by this attempt to sow discord and hatred between religious groups here. This case demonstrates that the continued relevance of ISA against the context of the ever-growing threat of radicalisation, extremism and terrorism on our shores. The hon Minister for Home Affairs reminded us poignantly that these extremists "have to succeed only once, but ISD has to succeed every single time". Having regard to all these circumstances, I do not advocate a rebalance in favour of more judicial scrutiny for Executive action under the ISA. Outside the realm of national security, we have statutes that contain ouster clauses excluding judicial review.”
“We must not take this trust for granted. As Members of this House, we are the people's representatives and part of the eco-system that ensures our people's acceptance of the legitimacy of laws and institutions. Before looking at the statutes in question, I think it is worthwhile mentioning that, thus far, the Government has taken a careful approach to clauses ousting judicial review. Even in relation to the CLTPA, in respect of which, hon Members may recall, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment quashing the Minister's detention order in 2015. The hon Minister, when he moved the Bill in this House 2018 to extend the validity of CLTPA for another five years, he made it very clear that his decisions under the Act may continue to be judicially reviewed on the three established grounds. I read this as a deliberate decision on the part of the Government to keep the exceptions to what it considers to be necessary in public interest. I commend this approach. With that, let me move straight to the ISA. I wish to state upfront that I believe that there remains a cogent basis to maintain the status quo for ISA. The ISA is an extraordinary piece of legislation that is aimed at ensuring Singapore's stability and security. I closely read the debate introducing the ouster clause in the ISA in 1989, particularly the speech of the then Minister of Home Affairs, the hon Prof S Jayakumar. In a bitingly frank response to points made by hon Members of Parliament, he recognised that there could be a prospect of the powers under ISA being misused. At the same time, he stated that ISA deals with issues where national security is involved and putting a Court to scrutinise exercise of powers will be tantamount to giving the Court, an unelected body, the final say on such matters.”
“This provides an important safeguard against abuse of power and strengthens the Rule of Law in Singapore. There are, however, a handful of statutes containing provisions that expressly restrict or exclude judicial review. In my speech, I would refer to these clauses as ouster clauses. The big elephant in the room, of course, the Internal Security Act or the ISA. Given the impact of such provisions on the Rule of Law, I think it is desirable that this House regularly conduct a review of the ouster clauses against current circumstances to ensure that there continues to be a need for such exceptions to exist and strike an appropriate balance between efficiency and accountability. In my respectful view, it is important for each generation of political leaders and people to find their own equilibrium of what our people would accept without question, under what circumstances and towards what ends. Fellow Singaporeans' desires and expectations are by no means static. Our Prime Minister, in his speech as Secretary-General of the PAP at its 36th Ordinary Party Conference in November 2020, acknowledged this. He stated that Singaporeans today have expressed a desire to, amongst others, re-examine basic assumptions, look beyond, tried and tested ways of doing things and have greater checks and balances. He also said that the PAP Government must change and respond to these desires and expectations. Law derives its power not merely from the fact that it is enforceable by the state apparatus, but, fundamentally, from our people's willingness to accept the law and the authority of our institutions as legitimate. Today, our people trust all three pillars of our Government to enact, use and enforce laws to ensure that we remain a fair and just, safe and secure society.”
“Mr Speaker, much of what we enjoy today in Singapore is owed to the strong adherence to the Rule of Law. Judicial review by the Supreme Court represents an important tenet of the Rule of Law that all power must have legal limits. In our Westminster-styled Government, Executive action is generally reviewable by the Judiciary, which is vested with judicial power under Article 93 of the Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution states that any law enacted by this House which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void. Judicial review does not mean that the Court substitutes its decision for the Executive's decision. What it means is that the Court has a right to satisfy itself of the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of the Executive's decision. If it is not satisfied, it can strike such action down as being of no effect. In comparison, Parliament, to which the Executive is accountable to, does not have such a power, although it has other tools. Also, structurally, the Executive is drawn from the majority of elected Members of Parliament in Parliament; a feature that Walter Bagehot referred to as the "efficient secret of the English Constitution" upon which the Westminster-styled Government is based on. In Singapore, most Government actions are subject to judicial review. For example, it is well established that the Minister's decision to detain a person under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or CLTPA, in the interest of public safety, peace and good order is reviewable by the Court in certain respects. It is noteworthy that even where public safety and peace are at threat, is recognised that the Minister's decisions based on such matters may be judicially reviewed by the Court.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon Second Minister for Law for his characteristic considered and full responses to the speeches made by the hon Members of Parliament for this Committee of Supply debate for MinLaw. I would also like to express my appreciation to the officers of the Ministry of Law as well as its Statutory Boards for their devotion to duty and executing MinLaw's mission. I had the privilege of meeting some MinLaw officers recently. They all expressed the hope that they do not have to be involved in so many Bills under Certificates of Urgency. I also hope so too, but I am confident that if the situation demands it, they will rise to the challenge. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $297,224,700 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $220,364,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore has forged a hard-earned reputation of being one of the most preferred dispute resolution centres in the world. Over the years, the Ministry of Law has introduced a slew of measures to improve her dispute resolution framework. To further improve the framework, I suggest the Government consider acceding to the Hague Service Convention, which is the short form for the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. It is an old treaty that came into being in 1965. Its purpose is simple: to offer a reliable and efficient means of serving court documents from parties living, operating or based in another country. The convention applies to service of process in civil and commercial matters but not criminal matters. Signing up for the Hague Service Convention will allow for service of judicial documents in civil matters abroad without the need to invoke time consuming and uncertain consular processes. I would be grateful for the hon Minister's response to my suggestion. Singapore's Intellectual Property Protection Regime”
“I am obliged, Mr Chairman. Sir, I have been pushing for the modernisation of probate and administration processes since the COS debate in 2017. The hon Minister responded then stating that the matter is under review by the relevant agencies. In the Straits Times article published in July 2017, it was reported that only 10%-15% of Singaporeans have made wills. Even for allowing for an increase in the percentage in the three years plus that has passed, by international standards, this is rather low. In contrast, it was reported that in 2017, the corresponding figure in UK is more than 40%. The trouble, anxiety and financial difficulties caused by the lack of a will, especially when the breadwinner dies, is real. The low numbers present an opportunity for us though to modernise the processes spelt out in the Wills Act enacted 183 years ago. With the technological advancement we have made since, we should be able to provide options for Singaporeans to execute digital wills, ensuring that the wills are kept securely and acted upon upon the death of the testator in accordance with his or her wishes. At the same time, the probate and administration processes can be updated to make it fuss-free for applicants by leveraging on the Government's archive of key documents, maybe even in lieu of court applications. I will be grateful if the hon Minister please provide an update on the efforts to modernise and simplify the probate and administration processes by leveraging on IT. COVID-19 Temporary Bills – Excellent Moves”
“In this regard, please allow me to share a situation that happened recently in Texas, US as reported in a New York Times article dated 20 February 2021. As Members may know, a winter storm knocked off Texas power grid and froze natural gas production. This affected millions of Texans. As a result, electricity prices, which was tied to wholesale prices and market-driven, spiked astronomically. Some Texans had to pay up to 70 times what they usually pay for the utilities. 7.15 pm We must ensure that we have legislative levers to be able to move swiftly to prevent such instances from happening in Singapore. I look forward to the hon Ministers' responses to my queries. I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“While contracts are ordinarily written as a means to hold people fast to their promises, these COVID-19 legislative measures allow a common understanding and the general principles for re-negotiation. These require parties to work a basis of mutual trust in mutual gains, rather than a position that one party is trying to gain advantage over the other. The COVID-19 legislation is an extraordinary effort to make law bend to the realities, and to compensate for exogenous factors such as misfortune, bad luck and in this case, a global pandemic. The hon Minister for Law, in a memorable speech made last year in this House, informed how within just nine days, his Ministry, with the help of Government agencies, the hon Attorney-General and his officers from the Attorney-General's Chambers and private sector professionals and lawyers, came together, conceptualised the support framework and drafted the legislation. People in the know will acknowledge the superb quality of the legislation which had to be drafted from scratch. The team members behind the legislation, no doubt, made personal sacrifices so that Singaporeans facing an almost certain financial ruin and uncertainty will get a reprieve instead. We should not forget their contributions. With almost a year has past, since the implementation of the first COVID-19 legislation, this may be an opportune time to recount the efficacy of and the feedback received on these measures. Have they worked as the Minister had anticipated? As we are not out of the woods yet from the economic effects of the pandemic, what further legislative measures can we anticipate in the future? Also, is it time that we think of having a framework legislation that can be employed swiftly when the next crisis hits us?”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Since the pandemic hit us, the Ministry of Law spearheaded the implementation of a slew of legislative measures aimed at helping small and micro-businesses. Through the measures, many of which were introduced as Bills on Certificates of Urgency, these businesses were able to obtain relief that allowed them to conserve on cashflow and be protected from legal action. Measures included the Temporary Relief for Inability to Perform Contracts, Rental Relief Framework, Simplified Insolvency Programme and the Re-align Framework. Like with most pieces of legislation, these are dry names but for matters vital to our economic and personal lives. They mean the difference between a state of uncertainty and precariousness, and one of dignity and purpose. They have made a difference for large groups of people – not just owners of small businesses, but the many workers employed in these businesses and companies. For parents, they mean the difference between paying attention to their children's education and future, instead of worrying about food on the table; for tenants, rental relief meant they could focus on rethinking their business and relying on their landlords as trusted partners. For those who need to wind up their business, through the heartache and emotional difficulty of letting go a dream, there is the assurance of simplicity and speed. These are not the subjects of headlines, but they are common sense writ hard into law – due to the pandemic, circumstances have changed, and not due to the fault of any party.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, my thanks to all the hon Members of Parliament for speaking on the MHA COS debate, the four political office holders for their responses and detailing the plans and emphasis points for MHA and Home Team. And also, most importantly, my thanks to the officers of MHA and Home Team for performing their duties 24 hours a day, every day of the year, without fear or favour, in keeping Singapore safe and secure. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $6,555,769,700 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,332,058,600 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“I would be grateful if the Minister could please inform this House what is the average number of inmates referred to Yellow Ribbon Singapore per year between 2018 and 2020? What is the breakdown between long-term and short-term sentence inmates? Finally, what steps have been identified to take advantage of JGI? As we gain more success in getting our inmates better paying jobs with better prospects, we also would have made significant progress in our efforts to help fellow Singaporeans in the lower economic strata to move up the social mobility escalator.”
“Mr Chairman, between 2018 and 2020, the offender population in prison on the average is 10,207 per year. Adding penal and Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) releases together, on the average, 9,862 inmates were released each year for this corresponding period. What is noteworthy is the overall recidivism rate has remained low and stable. About eight out of 10 inmates released in 2018 did not return to prison within a two-year release period. This is a good indication of the progress made in rehabilitating and re-integrating ex-inmates. By no means, however, we should think we have arrived. One of the best ways to encourage ex-inmates to turn over a new leaf is to get them decent jobs. I am heartened to note that 93% of inmates referred to Yellow Ribbon Singapore in 2020 secured a job prior to release. This is not an easy target to achieve. Ex-inmates are debarred from certain sectors such as security and Government jobs. They face motivational issues. Lack of qualifications can be an inhibiting factor. Twenty-two percent of the convicted penal population only has primary school education or lower. With the Government's decision to extend the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) to ex-offenders, I believe we have a unique opportunity to match ex-offenders to get and stay in better paying jobs with better prospects. I note the tendency amongst some inmates to take on jobs in the gig economy. I am concerned that they may, in due course, face difficulty with their housing and retirement needs if they do not accumulate sufficient savings in their CPF accounts. I also understand that Yellow Ribbon Singapore focusses more on long-term sentence ex-inmates and not short-term sentence ex-inmates. Perhaps, this could be re-looked.”
“I do recall that the hon Minister highlighting in this House the heavy workload of our Police Investigators and that he asked for review to get a better sense of the pressure faced by Police Officers, particularly due to lack of manpower resources. How are we proposing to support our officers to ensure that not only their input will be of the highest quality in keeping with public expectation, but that their wellbeing is protected? As I mentioned earlier, the Police has already started leveraging on technology and make significant progress. The challenge now, given the drivers for change, is to make an even more transformational change, so that these officers undertake their duties not as mere mortals, but what I term as hyper-humans – with eyes and ears of sensor systems, closed circuit television, live feeds and police cameras. They should have arms and legs of new pistols, new fighting skills, new sub-machine guns and carbines. New brains of analytics, data, increasing automation. Almost like Robocop, but perhaps a more friendly version of it. All these require new skills and training, and people will be the key to the successful transformation. Police Officers already have hearts of steel – and we need to support, train and encourage these officers because they are few in number, even as the load becomes more heavy, the criminals more nefarious and public expectation ever higher. At the same time, we need to ensure that there continues to be a high level of trust amongst Singaporeans on our Home Team's integrity and professionalism. Otherwise, whatever transformation that will be undertaken will not work. I look forward to hearing the hon Minister's plans on supporting the Home Team Transformation. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 4.”
“But, given the nature of the work that the police do – where the darkest, most secret part of human interactions come to light – the expectations of members of the public are escalated many folds. Our officers must be a mix of psychologist, social worker, community partner, law enforcer and a friendly but authoritative face. Added to all that – the policeman must be the hero next door. Because there is more work and more intense work, you cannot be an ordinary man or woman to be a Police Officer. The nature of crime the police now face, is not just the "traditional dangers" of crime such as violence or drug taking, but the new and rising threats such as cybercrime. Technology gives a new twist to old threats too – for example, the terrorist threat Singapore faces today remains as high as it was about 20 years ago when ISD thwarted Jemaah Islamiah's plans to attack an MRT station and several foreign embassies in Singapore. Just a few weeks ago, ISD once again thwarted the plans of a youth who became self-radicalised through online sources and intended to attack two mosques on the anniversary of the Christchurch mosque attacks. Today, attacks are more difficult to pre-empt or prevent. There are also exogenous and external challenges too, because Singapore is a porous country, and a global, transport, transshipment and financial hub. What additional efforts will be taken to invest in and upgrade the skills of our Home Team officers? How is it equipped to handle the ever more challenging cases for investigation, especially white-collar crime and scams? Huge effort has to be expended in investigations before such perpetrators can be brought to book.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100". The Home Team has developed a hard-earned reputation of maintaining a high standard of law and order in Singapore despite running a lean workforce. In the Gallup Global Law and Order Report 2020, Singapore was ranked first for the seventh year running. In the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index 2020, Singapore was ranked first in the area of "order and security". These are highly commendable outcomes that did not come easy. They arose through the blood, sweat and tears of our Home Team and MHA officers. They deserve the appreciation of all Singaporeans. Yet, circumstances are such that the Home Team cannot afford to sit on its laurels. I note that it has, some time ago, in anticipation of a manpower crunch, expended efforts to set up the HTX and tap on technology, robotics and automation as force multipliers. The demands on Home Team, however, are ever rising. How is the Home Team striking the right balance between the competing demands whilst it endeavours to keep Singapore safe and secure? The ambition of security and safety appears to be simple, but it is anything but. When the transformation in 2025 was announced in 2015, there were four planks which were discussed – manpower constraints, higher expectations of the public, increased load and emerging threats. The demographic decline of Singaporeans has meant that there were fewer each year to take up the role of Police Officers. The ever-rising expectations of public; this is true, not just of policemen but of all public officers.”