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 15 of 25.
“All these rely on innovation, enterprise and technology. These must not be the esoteric domain of glass and steel in biopolis, but must flow into the conversations of coffeeshops in our housing estates, into "what I want to be when I grow up" essays in primary schools. The Global-Asia node cannot be an ambition for the few, but a lived reality for all. Can the Minister tell us how MFA's efforts to make Singapore as a global Asia hub, improve the daily lives of Singaporeans, especially during these difficult times? Supporting ASEAN Chair”
“Sir, Deputy Prime Minister Heng in his Budget speech highlighted that the strategy for our country to emerge stronger must involve deepening Singapore's position as a Global-Asia node. He also signalled that Singapore must deepen its capacity to collaborate and innovate with partners around the world, especially the ASEAN countries. It may seem incredible, but over the course of the past one year, where all eyes appear to be focused on the Herculean effort in healthcare, social compliance and understanding the virus itself, two things happened under the radar, which shows that we have kept faith with the vision and how it stood us in good stead. First, the securing of sufficient supply of vaccines ahead of other countries. This is no small feat. And today, Singapore is in a very good position to emerge from the pandemic. We must not take for granted that a small country with no bargaining power can secure a reliable supply of such a precious commodity and provide logistics, not just for Singapore, but for others in the region. Second, investments in Singapore have continued unabated. We have heard of expansion of global firms in Singapore. In 2020, Singapore attracted Singapore attracted $17.2 billion in investments, despite its worst recession since Independence. We are therefore in a good position to realise the ambitions of a Global-Asia node. The question arises as to how MFA can facilitate these ambitions? How does MFA's work to enhance cooperation with these countries contribute to this imperative? Will the integration of ASEAN markets happen? Deputy Prime Minister Heng has identified three areas for focus. The first is in the area of setting standards. Second, the area of human capital development, and the third, international business linkages.”
“One further area which I wish to highlight for review is to statutorily provide in the PCA the attribution of company employees' corrupt actions to the company so that the company can be held liable and can be taken to task under the PCA in appropriate cases too. As three years have passed, I will be grateful for an update of this matter. SGUnited, Employment and Re-Employment”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore has a well-known reputation of being a jurisdiction that is tough on corruption. Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2020 ranked our country as being the third least corrupt country in the world. Singapore is the only Asian country to be ranked in the top 10. This hard-earned reputation and result are due in no small part to our men and women in CPIB. They deserve our gratitude for keeping corruption in check and ensuring that no one is exempted from the long arm of law even though the investigations can be difficult, arduous and may even take time. In the 2018 Committee of Supply debate, I suggested that the main tool of the CPIB, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), which was last reviewed more than 30 years ago, be updated to ensure that CPIB will continue to be able to handle the evolving challenge of corruption, in particular, cross-border corruption. Some of the areas I suggested looking into include expanding the extraterritorial reach of PCA to include corporations incorporated in Singapore; to update the punishment provisions, especially with respect to corporations, and to consider enacting a provision similar to the UK Bribery Act; which is to make it an offence for corporations that fail to prevent the commission of bribery. The hon Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, in response, stated that a review was being undertaken. Three days ago, CPIB issued a press statement highlighting the charging of three former employees for bribery in which the value of the subject is about $200 million. It seems to me that this case is a timely reminder of the need to review the PCA provisions to ensure that the punishment provisions serve as an effective deterrent.”
“How will MAS ensure that banks will take their responsibilities seriously in preventing fraud and anti-money laundering, especially in the context of fraud amounting to billions of dollars? Even as Singapore grows in strength and stature as a financial centre, we need to make sure that our growth is rooted in a strong enforcement regime where all stakeholders are held firmly to their regulatory duties. 6.00 pm Ensure Fair Value of Insurance Policies”
“Mr Chairman, being an international financial centre, Singapore-based banks must remain vigilant in the fight against fraud and money laundering. In the recent past, there had been an exponential increase in dollar value of white-collar crime that has impacted on the banking system. In the commodities trade sector, Singapore has been rocked by trade financing fraud that has led to multi-billion dollar exposures to banks. Some banks have withdrawn services from this sector totally. Traders with legitimate businesses suffered a hit as it would be more difficult for them to get credit lines. In a response dated 5 October 2020 to my Parliamentary Question, the hon Senior Minister stated that the fraud cases have been attributed to weak disclosure practices and internal controls on the part of the companies. What is concerning though is that, despite these weaknesses, banks have extended credit lines to such companies. On the part of the banks, there should have been more robust credit risk assessment of the companies. There should be more checks, apart from just relying on paper-based processes, as they are more susceptible to the risk of fraud. The impact of the banks’ lack of diligence is not just felt by the banks in question but the entire eco-system. Banks regulated by MAS play a key role in preserving the integrity of our financial system. They are, in fact, required to guard against the use of their operations to facilitate any illegitimate activity, including fraud and money laundering. Failure to do so can have a serious impact on businesses and affect Singapore’s reputation as a premier international financial centre. May I ask whether MAS has conducted a review of the banks’ actions against their regulatory requirements?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Minister of State for his detailed answers. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of ISD, who have been vigilant in thwarting this attack, which would otherwise have very serious consequences on Singapore and Singaporeans. My supplementary question relates to this alarming trend of people outside Singapore trying to radicalise impressionable youths. What can we do in Singapore to sensitise our youths to this trend and what steps can they take to report upwards if their friends are actually engaged in such websites.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for your indulgence. I would like to thank the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim for her clarification question. In relation to how I got the impression that the powers would only be used when there is a clear and pressing need, I would like to direct her attention to the Government statement issued on 8 January 2021, entitled "Upcoming Legislative Provisions for Usage of Data from Digital Contact Tracing Solutions", where in paragraph three, it is stated that the legislation will specify the personal data collected through digital contact tracing solutions which comprise the TraceTogether programme and SafeEntry programme can only be used for the specific purpose of contact tracing except where there is a clear and pressing need to use that data for criminal investigations of serious offences. So, that is how I formed the impression and I would invite the hon Minister to confirm if my impression is correct, in his response to us.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, so as not to hold up the proceedings, I am checking my notes and I will come back to my learned friend, Ms Sylvia Lim, shortly.”
“All we have is our very human responses – our responsibility to each other, our own recognition of our vulnerabilities, our hopes and our better selves. TraceTogether and SafeEntry, collectively, is a tool to help us in this pandemic and we need it in this new and present threat. It is also a tool to help us against the old evils of human depravity, greed and lust. There is no reason why it cannot do both. Even if one contact were traced through which one serious crime is solved or one serious crime is prevented, it would be worthwhile. And we just need one reason to support this Bill. In closing, I would like to refer to the hon Leader of Opposition's point about the future and how we should regulate data in the future. I would suggest, especially, in the context of the present crisis and the efforts being expended to contain the threat of COVID-19, we should also be looking at the future when we have to contain another crisis. In that kind of scenario, what would we want to be as Members in this House? Should we just be ambassadors of our people, just conveying what this group of people have expressed, or that group of people have expressed? Would that be sufficient? Or would it be necessary that we bear the responsibility as leaders to move our people, to say, "This is a crisis. Yes, errors will be made. But look at the conduct. Look at the outcome." We must have the courage to move our people in one direction to overcome the crisis together. And that to me would be a big lesson for the future. I support this Bill. [Applause.]”
“The crucial point to note is that this Bill represents a compromise to ensure that we do not take the risk of losing the ability to conduct contact tracing quickly and aggressively via TraceTogether and SafeEntry when we are in the midst of a pandemic. It seems to me that there is broad agreement for data to be used to investigate the seven categories of serious crime proposed under the Bill. I do appreciate the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim's point about the fact that they are not defined in terms of cross-reference to provisions but there is already description of the serious crimes. To me, that is sufficient. Using the general principles of interpretation, one would get to know what is parliamentary intention. Extending the categories will require hon Members of this House to take a gamble on whether or not a group of Singaporeans and residents will still be prepared to adopt TraceTogether and SafeEntry – and that is a point that the hon Leader of Opposition made – or, instead, be put off in light of the extended use of the data. This is not a gamble that we should take, given the state of COVID-19 pandemic today. It is far worse than a year ago – the mutating virus has variants which are more infectious and lethal, more than 2 million dead across the world, a reporter in tears on "live" TV as she visited hospitals where patients are dying from lack of proper healthcare, students in a university ringfenced by metal fences to regulate visitor movements and keep them safe. This quick escalation can happen in Singapore if we were to lose our cohesion resulting in our healthcare resources being overwhelmed. Even the vaccine is not a magic bullet. There are no magic bullets.”
“It is morally indefensible to shut our eyes to the answer when knowing it would make a difference in cracking a serious crime case and bringing the culprit to face justice and, possibly, save other lives from being victims of serious crime. This is not a crude utilitarian trampling of principles for a greater good. It is, in fact, the principle from which all Police powers come – the demand for justice, the right to be protected from evil and harm. To those people who are troubled because they received this raft of conspiracy messages, saying that, "Oh, the Police has no system to protect data and they use it for all kinds of issues"; let me just say it for myself as a criminal lawyer for the past 25 years and a former police officer before that, that I know personally how seriously the Police deals with issues of misuse of data. I know of cases, some of them were cases where I represented the ex-officer, where there was misuse of data, and the Police officers concerned were prosecuted. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] So, there is a system and I would want to share my own experience with those who are troubled by these conspiracy messages. A more difficult question – and that was posed by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza – is why then limit this access to serious crimes as defined under the Bill, given the state of law at this point? He spoke about the need to extend it to cover other classes of drug offences. With respect, this question ignores the facts and circumstances that have led us to this point. As hon Members are already familiar with the background, I will desist from recounting it again in my speech.”
“The question is a simple one. If these harms fall on your parent, your sibling, your child, and if the data from your TraceTogether token can make a difference between solving the case and leaving it unsolved, or if it means catching the criminal in days rather than in months or even years, would we not say yes? I do say yes, and this is why I support this Bill. I do so for one main reason – it is in line with the current legislative policy to allow the Police access to any relevant data, no matter how personal, in their investigations. As it stands, there is no blanket privacy protection that applies across the board. Our private phone logs, our banking records, are all subject to these provisions. The need for privacy must be weighed against the demands of justice, and the need to protect the safety and security of all Singaporeans. We are by no means unique in taking this stance. I made mention last month in this House that there is parity between the positions taken in Singapore and the European Union through its General Data Protection Regulations. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair] An easy way out of this decision, it would be to say that TraceTogether and SafeEntry, taken together, is an aberration – if it had not existed, what would the Police do? The Police have solved crimes before TraceTogether and SafeEntry, and will do so after the programme has been stood down. So, why do we feel it needs this? Why not do without? It would indeed be the easier route – just keep to the original promise, forget about the data and pretend we never had it. But the fact remains that this is not a hypothetical armchair philosophy question. We have real crimes, real lives at stake.”
“So, just looking at two points, April and June, you could already see there is a bit of a disjunct and there was an error that arose arising from the fact that while on one hand, the Prime Minister said there could be some privacy concerns, on the other, the Minister had pointed out that the data would only be used for contact tracing. I, like the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, looked at the chronology of the entire saga and I am convinced that this error, just like the hon Leader of Opposition said, is not an error that was intentionally made. It was an error, in the words of Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, a mea culpa that arose because it was not drawn to his attention that the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was applicable. This Bill asks for permission to make TraceTogether and SafeEntry data, which was meant to be used for contact tracing to be available to the Police when there is a clear and pressing need to use that data for criminal investigations into seven categories of serious offences. In this regard, both the hon Leader of Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, asked questions in relation to exactly when this would arise in practice. One point that was made was that the Police has already an abundance of tools. But, to me, I find it useful that in this Bill, there is the operative words "clear and pressing need", and that, to me, limits the ability to use the data. And in relation to the seven categories – these are serious crimes that we are talking about – anyone looking at it would know that – and I am, in a sense, sharing what I am going to say a bit later – in balancing privacy concerns with really the concern for meting out justice in relation to the commission of serious offences, the Police should be provided access.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, today’s debate is about accountability to Parliament. As leaders, it is important to communicate clearly as well as in a principled manner. If we had stated in this House that TraceTogether data is to be used only for contact tracing, then it should be so. Even if there is great benefit to be gained by using it for other purposes, even if there is fine print that allows us to do so, we should forebear. If we want to take a different approach from what was earlier represented in this House, then we should raise the matter here for debate and convince hon Members in this House that it is necessary to change tack. This is responsible politics. It is for this reason that I welcome the introduction of this Bill. The hon Leader of Opposition in his speech mentioned that there are quarters outside this House which ascribe a sinister motive in relation to the point as to whether the hon Minister knew from the outset that the data was to be used for other matters, apart from contact tracing, in particular, in dealing with investigation of offences. What is noteworthy, as the hon Leader of Opposition mentioned, was that in the hon Prime Minister's speech on the 21 April 2020, he had already stated that in relation to the digital contact tracing efforts, there could be privacy concerns. I filed a Parliamentary Question for the sitting in June 2020. On 4 June 2020, the Government's answer was that the data from TraceTogether would be used for contact tracing only.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon Senior Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary for his comprehensive answers to the 12 Parliamentary Questions. I have a supplementary question in relation to donees under the Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and deputies appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act, in respect of seniors citizens aged 70 and above. For these groups of people, I wonder whether MOH or any other Government body could provide some additional assistance, perhaps developing FAQs for them so that they are able to understand what their duties are under the respective LPAs and under the Court orders and kind of juxtapose it with the requirements under the vaccination programme.”
“With your indulgence, Sir, I would like to raise a point of information. I recall the hon Member Mr Giam in a debate on the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Bill raised the possibility of linking the standards under the Personal Data Protection Act and the Government's standards in relation to data protection, with the General Data Protection Regulations of the EU. As far as the General Data Protection Regulations of the EU is concerned, there is a carve-out in relation to police investigation. In fact, police may access personal data in relation to detection, prevention, investigation as well as prosecution of criminal offences. So, in a sense, there is parity in relation to the Singapore situation with that of the situation in the EU. That is all, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify a comment made by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim on the purport of the amendment. She appears to have understood my amendments as suggesting that the Government does not admit that there was any shortcoming in the past. That was not my intent. In fact, if anything, Mr Speaker, the point I was stressing in my speech was that there were shortcomings in the past. But the point is, the Government continues to expend effort to improve the system and to ensure there is justice for all. So, that is really the point I sought to make.”
“Sir, I am clear in my mind where the PAP Government stands on this. The raison d'etre of the PAP is to build a fair and just society, founded on justice and equality for all people, especially the disadvantaged. This applies in and out of Court. Just a few days ago, Miss Lim, a daughter of a man who was on his deathbed approached me. She was served with a Stay-Home Notice or SHN, and she was extremely concerned that she would not be able to see her father at the deathbed because she had to serve the SHN. Within three hours, she was able to see her father in the hospital. Which other country would be able to do this and this was way after office hours? Sir, let us not forget, while we wish to improve the system, we have every reason to be proud of the justice system and, in fact, the Government system that we have in place today. This is not the time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I believe my hon friends from Workers' Party across the aisle would also hold true to the same values. With that, I beg to move. [Applause.] 11.03 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I am obliged to the Leader of the House for moving the Motion. Sir, I was at the point of explaining the proposed amendments. Let me just say that it is my hope that these proposed amendments would get bipartisan support. With that, let me now go through the amendments. The first point is really replacing "affirms" with "recognises", to be more precise. And that is to state the fact that from the outset, from Singapore's Independence, fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of the Singapore justice system. And the next point, Sir, it is in relation to the usage of the word "affirms". And this is really to state as a matter of truth, that the Government has been continually putting in the effort since Independence to build a fair and just society, to remedy any shortcoming to enhance justice for all regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status. So, I added the words "race, language, religion" and I do not think that should be controversial. I have proposed to delete "including facilitating a review" of the justice system. Let me explain why. This is to leave this Motion in broad terms so that at the end of the day, it is an affirmation that the Government would continue to remedy any shortcoming that is brought up, and to allow the conversation to happen in this House about what further steps need to be taken. One should realise this. At the end of the day, the buck stops with this House. It is this House that has to make the political decisions to pass legislation, to move amendments to the Constitution in relation to the justice system. So, the buck must stop here and this Motion reflects that reality. I do not think anything is taken away with the amendments that I propose.”
“Obliged, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendments: (1) In line 1, to delete "affirms" and insert "recognises"; (2) In line 3, to delete "calls on the Government to recognise" and insert instead "affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society"; (3) In line 3, to delete "its shortcomings" and insert "any shortcoming"; (4) In line 4, after the words "regardless of" to insert the words "race, language, religion, economic"; and finally, (5) In line 5, to delete ", including facilitating a review of the justice system" and insert a full-stop. With your leave, Sir, I would like to explain the proposed amendments.”
“Yes, Sir. I have handed them to the Clerk. May copies be distributed to hon Members, please.”
“Yes, Sir. May I hand it out now? [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]”
“I would just go straight to the fact that clearly, there is broad agreement between Members from both sides of the House about the importance of fairness, access and independence being the cornerstones of Singapore's justice system from inception and recognition that there has been continuous efforts to improve the justice system to build a fair and just society, regardless of one's personal background, race, religion or social economic background. These efforts must continue on. With that in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your permission to move an amendment to the Motion under discussion to reflect this broad agreement.”
“I wish to state that the provision of bail is a judicial decision. The Judge deciding whether to grant bail or allowing the person to be released on his own cognisance, would be something that has to be dealt with after considering the offence that the person is charged for, the kind of sentence that may be imposed and, of course, the strong presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So, it is a balancing act. And I have seen Judges deciding to allow persons of humble means to be let off, to be bailed or rather, to be released on a personal bond. Ms Sylvia Lim also mentioned about the difficulty of paying fines for indigent persons. And that is a fair point but again, I come back to the important note that the imposition of a fine is a punishment by the Judge acting in his judicial discretion. The Judge would have to decide in the circumstances of the case, whether a fine is an adequate punishment. And there are other options as well, particularly in the last few years, we have, as some Members have pointed out, the community aentence option in addition to the usual options. So, there is a discretion given to the Judge to make sure that the ends of justice, not just from the perspective of the accused, but from the perspective of the victim and the state, are met. There have also been great strides in improving the criminal justice system. I would not go through ground that has already been highlighted by hon Members who spoke before me.”
“I was exploring a community sentence, a Mandatory Treatment Order, to be imposed on him even though his prognosis for recovery was not good. As it turned out, he subsequently assaulted his own mother. That put paid to my efforts and he was sentenced to prison for his offences. At this point, I wish to state that it is a matter of pride for me that over the years, the Law Society of Singapore has nurtured a strong culture of pro bono work amongst its lawyers, especially through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS started in the 1980s by the late Mr Harry Elias, Senior Counsel, and now supported by MinLaw. Mr Anil Balchandani, the lawyer who acted for Ms Parti Liyani, is a good example of a selfless legal professional devoted to the cause of justice on behalf of persons who ordinarily would not be able to afford to pay for the services of a lawyer. I am confident that many more lawyers would be motivated by his example. This can only auger well for our country. I also wish to state that I have acted for people who have occupied important positions and have been charged in Court for various criminal offences. For example, I acted for Mr Choo Wee Khiang, a former Member of Parliament and Mr Chuang Shaw Peng, a former Nominated Member of Parliament. In none of the cases that I dealt with, for the vulnerable persons and the "connected" persons, if I could use that word, did I get the feeling that the justice system was tilted in favour of "connected" persons, as compared to the persons who are disadvantaged. And this may be a convenient time for me to deal with a few points that the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim raised in her speech. She pointed out that bails could work adversely for poor people because they cannot post bail.”
“On fairness, SPF's published credo is as follows and I quote,"We are fair in our dealings with people, irrespective of race, religion, gender, age, standing in life and irrespective of whether they are victims, suspects or convicts." This is this unstinting devotion to duty that allowed Singapore to achieve the enviable reputation of being a relatively safe country with low crime rate. That is not to say there is no discipline cases within the force. Yes, from time to time, we have black sheep. These persons will be dealt with effectively by SPF, CPIB and the Courts. But their conduct is not representative of the vast majority of upright, dedicated and hardworking Police officers. And earlier today, we heard Minister Shanmugam saying, maybe even overworked Police officers. I joined legal practice in 1996. I continued to be involved in criminal and pro bono work. As a pro bono lawyer, I have acted for vulnerable and disadvantaged people. In fact, this eventually led me to politics. I highlight two cases where I was involved in. My very first trial was a pro bono case to defend a young man accused of shoplifting. He just completed his National Service (NS). He and his family had very modest means and could not pay for a lawyer. He had walked out of the department store with items that he did not pay for. Luckily for him, the Court was persuaded that he walked out of the store accidentally and acquitted him. Recently, I took on a Court-assigned pro bono case involving a mentally disordered person with little education. His father had passed away and his mother was a cleaner at a hawker centre. He was accused of stealing coins from a vending machine. He was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder.”
“Now, we have the Serious Sexual Crime Branch under the CID, where Police officers are given special training to give special attention to victims of sexual offences and, in the process, make sure that they would get the justice that they deserve. We have not arrived yet, but we have made great progress. The second case I will never forget involved my colleague, the late SI Boo Tiang Huat. He was the OC of Whitley NPP, if I remember correctly. At that time, there was a spate of housebreaking at homes under the charge of the NPP. He personally led anti-house breaking rounds, night after night, to deter such incidents. He felt it his personal responsibility to lead these efforts. In the early morning of 30 November 1994, SI Boo was murdered by a person whom he stopped to check along Newton Road. The person was apparently walking home after an aborted robbery attempt. He chopped SI Boo with an axe that he extricated from a bag he was carrying. Personally, for myself and colleagues who attended the scene, it was tough to accept that a colleague we saw earlier in the morning has sacrificed his life in the course of duty. It was tougher for his wife and his young children, whom I accompanied to the scene to pray for SI Boo's soul later that day. Police officers, past and present have spilled blood, sweat and tears in their mission to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Heng and Senior Minister of State Mr Heng Chee How and several other hon Members have storied careers in the Police force They know this for a fact. The core values of the Singapore Police officers are courage, even if it means to risk their lives, loyalty, integrity and fairness.”
“In fact, Ms Lim was my colleague; a very capable colleague, I would add. The work of the Singapore Police Force officers, then and now, has always been focused on protecting the vulnerable amongst us. Although it has been decades since I left the force, I can still vividly remember some cases I personally dealt with. I will highlight two, where I was involved, was covering the duties of CIO 1 Tanglin Police Division. The first case involved a rape case, of an 11-year-old girl who was going for tuition in the day. She was raped at a staircase landing of a flat. It was a terribly trying moment for her. But amazingly, she was able to provide a good description of the assailant. We devoted full attention to the case, leaving no stones unturned. That helped us nab him within a few days. He was charged in Court and convicted and sentenced to a long imprisonment term. I still remember the note from the girl's father who expressed his appreciation over the work that we did. He said that the apprehension and conviction of the assailant brought closure which allowed him and his daughter to move on. His daughter would be about 36 or 37 years old now. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim shared her experience of a rape victim who unfortunately was not told the reasons why the AGC did not proceed with her complaint and charge the accused in Court. But she would certainly agree with me that between the time when we were in the Police force and now, great strides have been taken to improve the process. Previously, rape cases were dealt with at the Division level.”
“This would assist lay people to appreciate what decisions they would face if they were to be convicted in a court of law. But one accepts that a Judge would generally be in a better position to decide on the merits of the case as a neutral umpire hearing both sides, as opposed to entering into the fray to help frame questions and arguments for the unrepresented person. The main points I wish to make in my speech are as follows. This is a country that is governed by the rule of law. That has been my experience over the past 28 years as a former regular Police officer and now a lawyer. The hallmark of the rule of law is independence and transparency of the Judiciary. And I am very glad to note that hon Members from the Workers' Party agree fully with this point. The second point I wish to make is that in the context of administration of justice that involves more stakeholders; the Police, the DPPs, the State Courts, Judiciary and so on, we have made improvements over time, over years. We certainly have not arrived yet. And today we have heard very good suggestions from both sides of the House which should be considered, debated and distilled. The point that the hon Minister for Home Affairs made just a few moments ago, is something that we should bear in mind. While there can be good ideas, at the end of the day, it is a balancing process. We need to balance the interests of the victims, the accused persons, the public and, of course, the state resources of which the Minister for Finance is in charge of. With that as a background, I wish to recount my experience in the Police force. Sir, like the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, I joined the Police force as a regular for a few years, before I joined private practice as a lawyer – again, just like her.”
“The Executive arm of the Government is accountable to this House for the actions of its enforcement officers. The Judiciary is an independent arm of the Government. So is the Attorney-General. He derives his power from an independent constitutional grant. Our apex Court has described his office as a high constitutional office equal to that of the Judiciary. They are separate processes spelled out in the Constitution and other legislation to hold judicial and prosecuting officers to account in a way that does not compromise the independence of our Judiciary and the Attorney-General's office. The hon Leader of Opposition referred to the fact that the DPPs in the Parti Liyani case were referred for disciplinary action in relation to whether or not they had breached the Kadar obligations. So, this is a separate process that will have to take place. And if these DPPs are held to be in breach, then they would have to suffer the consequences, while maintaining the independence of the Judiciary and the Attorney-General's office. I agree with Ms Lim in her view that the justice system must work fairly for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons navigating the system as defenders. For them, we need to ensure equal access to justice. Access to justice does not necessarily equate to assess to lawyers. These are not my words. These are the words of Lady Hale, the retired President of the UK Supreme Court. In Singapore, Courts have taken great pains to explain their decision so that people could understand the law, particularly in the criminal law sphere. And I would even say, for sentencing the Courts have come up with frameworks to allow people to understand for a certain kind of offence, what would be the probable sentence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by conveying my sincere thanks to the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru for moving this Motion and triggering this enthusiastic discussion, despite the lateness of the day. It is clear from the speeches that we have heard that there is broad consensus on much that is touched by the Motion. There is broad consensus on the point that fairness, access and independence have been and continue to be cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. There is consensus that justice must apply equally to all, irrespective of means or social status. And I would add that, it should also not matter what one's race, language or religion is. These are matters for which there is overwhelming consensus not just in this House, but outside this House as well. It reflects the founding values of Singapore from Independence – a point I will develop later in my speech. As Ms He pointed out, there are constitutional articles where these values are enshrined and against which all other laws and Executive action are void and effective. Articles such as Article 9 which deals with no deprivation of life or liberty, safe in accordance with law. Article 12, which requires all persons to be equal before the law and be entitled to equal protection of the law. Article 93, which vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court in the State Courts. There is also a broad consensus over the fact that whenever there are shortcomings affecting the judicial system, steps must be identified to remedy them. This has been the case before, now and will continue to be the case. In this regard, we need to understand the separation of powers within our Constitution which is modelled on the Westminster system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the hon Minister for Home Affairs and Law. First, in relation to the investigation by the investigating officer or IO at Tanglin Police Division, I understand that it was classified as a routine theft case. I wonder whether given the factual complexities, as opposed to the legal complexities, the Police could approach this in a different way, in future, so that the necessary expertise may be borne onto the case. Second, in relation to the fact that currently, we have a Legal Service Commission, which draws on both judicial officers as well as legal officers from the AGC, I wonder whether the Minister has any views on having a separate Judicial Service Commission. And that would serve two purposes. Firstly, to deepen the competence of judicial officers; and secondly, to enhance or entrench the view that the judicial system is separate and independent.”
“In conclusion, I think it appropriate to once again acknowledge and commend MinLaw, AGC, the various Ministries, private practitioners and industry associations for working together at almost "breakneck" speed to draft yet another Urgent Bill for presentation in this House within short notice. They have been working in overdrive for some time now, all with a view to ensure that Singaporeans get the best help possible whilst we navigate ourselves out of this terrible crisis. The Re-Align Framework is unique and creative; a first in the annals of Singapore's legal history. To them, this House and fellow Singaporeans owe them a debt of gratitude.”
“Second, may I please ask whether, under this Bill, there is any provision that can be invoked to allow for the preservation of the status quo or restrain in exercising security rights whilst the process contemplated under the Bill is being played out? If not, may I ask why not? Would it not be consistent with the objective of the Bill for a hiatus to be built in so that the small and micro-businesses will not suffer further hardship through the exercise of security rights, for example, forfeiting deposits or security bonds? Otherwise, the re-negotiation may take place in circumstances where the bargaining position of the small and micro businesses will be further weakened. I now come to my suggestions. The first suggestion is this. I note that SMEs are encouraged to re-negotiate the contracts with the counterparties during the negotiation phase. To facilitate these negotiations, may I please suggest that MinLaw make available to these parties some model clauses that they can incorporate into their revised contracts? This will have an impact of promoting certainty and enforceability of these revised contracts. Second, I wish to convey a suggestion mooted by my hon friend, Ms Nadia Samdin, in a pre-debate discussion. Recognising that small and micro-businesses only have a six-week window to invoke the Re-Align Framework, it is important to publicise this framework widely especially through Trade and Merchant Associations. We should not assume that people who would benefit from this framework would be actively looking out for these matters. Such a proactive approach will augment the policy intent behind this Bill.”
“The hon Minister dealt with this point in his speech. Apart from the point that he made that these micro businesses are already financially distressed, I would add further that the ability to negotiate a contract would actually provide a win-win situation or at least have a potential to provide a win-win situation, given these market conditions. I have two questions and two suggestions for the hon Minister. First, there is a need to properly categorise the SMEs that may invoke the relief measures under this Bill. And this is a point that a number of hon Members who spoke before me also raised. In the proposed Second Schedule, Part 3 of the Bill, the eligibility criteria is to be based on the SMEs' revenue in the past and the revenue drop in the current situation. And this is proposed to be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. May I ask the hon Minister what approach he will take to decide on these matters? As this is an important decision, I would imagine that the hon Minister would have already conducted some consultation with industry players before determining the figures. The hon Member Mr Edward Chia suggested having bespoke figures for each industry. While I can understand his approach, my respectful counter is that we may not have the benefit of time. We cannot be debating on the figures because there are small and micro businesses suffering and they would appreciate these measures to be given as soon as possible. Whichever way the hon Minister decides, it is inevitable that there will be SMEs which will fall out of the criteria. I wonder if the hon Minister could please recount relief measures that these SMEs may be entitled even though they may not directly benefit from this Bill.”
“While a churn of businesses is inevitable and needed, there is a real risk of a diminished SME sector as a whole, compounding the increases in industry concentration seen over the last few decades in many economies. That trend if it continues will have implications for future economic vibrance. It will likely also have an intangible impact on social capital." Currently, it would be difficult for small and micro-businesses to be able to lawfully terminate the pre-COVID-19 contracts without adverse consequences. As the hon Minister pointed out, firstly, they need to go to Court. This would mean that they have to raise funds to instruct lawyers. This is, in itself, a bridge too far for many of them. Secondly, from a legal standpoint, their cases are not straightforward. They would have to invoke the doctrine of frustration. Under this doctrine, a contract may be discharged if an unexpected supervening event makes it impossible for the contract to be performed. As the hon Minister pointed out, whilst the COVID-19 pandemic is an unanticipated supervening event, the economic consequence and significance on each individual contract is likely to differ. Given that the Courts apply this doctrine strictly, it would be difficult to predict whether it can be raised successfully. The Re-Align Framework offers small and micro-businesses suffering from serious drop in their revenue a ready option to re-negotiate their contracts with their counterparties within a contained period failing which the contracts may be terminated. Disputes arising from these matters will be referred to the assessor for final determination quickly. This is a much better option for small and micro businesses. I do appreciate that some counterparties may feel aggrieved over this arrangement.”
“She runs a mini-mart from a rented premise. She informs that before COVID-19, she was already impacted by dropping profits brought about by changing habits of residents. Since COVID-19 struck, she has not made a profit because the footfall dropped even further. She now has a serious cash flow problem arising from her commitments to her vendors and landlord based on pre-COVID-19 contracts. Another resident of mine who may potentially benefit from this framework is Mr Andrew Neoh. He is a blind masseur who rented premises to run his business. His business ceased during the lockdown period. He benefited from the rental relief introduced under "COVID 2". However, his business continues to decline and he is unable to meet his financial commitments under pre-COVID-19 lease. For businesses run by people like Mdm Prabha and Mr Neoh, if we do not do anything, many small and micro businesses will fold and a lot more Singaporeans will be out of jobs. This will exacerbate an already rising unemployment figures. No doubt, there will be a knock-on impact on families and society too. That would not be a correct move. Also, there are implications for the future when SMEs fold leaving behind only the big players. The hon Senior Minister Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam identified this in an illuminating article entitled "The Global Jobs Crisis & Why We Should Think Longer Term" that was published in Straits Times on 31 October 2020. He said, and I quote, "We need strategies to ensure that the SME sector survives and adapts to the new post-pandemic normal, to avoid much larger job losses in time as well as greater wage inequalities...”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill was presented in this House on a Certificate of Urgency for First Reading just yesterday. It would be good to recount that in this crisis year, not only did we have five Budget Debates, through which we infused an extraordinary sum of money and implemented decisive measures in the fight against COVID-19, we also passed three Bills on Certificates of Urgency dealing with the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on businesses. This is the fourth urgent Bill. This is a testimony to the intense efforts that have been put in by the whole-of-Government to help Singapore and Singaporeans as well as Singapore businesses navigate through this crisis. This is a point that the hon Member Mr Edward Chia just made a few minutes ago. The fact that we have been able to move speedily to consider and, if found appropriate, implement these legislative measures to provide the adaptation and scaffolding necessary for our businesses to climb out of the economic difficulties they face is commendable and sometimes can be taken for granted, but it should not be so. In his speech, the hon Minister outlined the reasons why he believes the economic outlook is not likely to change in the near term. This means that small and micro businesses are particularly vulnerable. It is against this context that I fully support the Re-Align Framework introduced in this COVID-19 Bill to help small and micro-businesses as we transition from the "resuscitate" phase to the "rejuvenate" phase, in the strategy that the hon Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat articulated in his Ministerial speech last month. Amongst the potential beneficiaries under the framework would be Mdm Prabha who is one of my residents.”
“The vast majority of backbencher Members of Parliament on both sides of this House are not full-time Members of Parliament. Having a House of backbencher Members of Parliament, not of professional politicians but each of us holding different areas of knowledge and expertise ensures that we, as a House, do not have the same blind spots. Combined with a listening frontbench, we will be able to make better contributions to policy-making for Singapore and fellow Singaporeans. I support the Bill. [Applause.] 6.43 pm”
“The e-Apostille system enables Singaporeans to apply for a public document to be issued with an e-Apostille system online. Hopefully this can be done via SingPass in the near future. The e-Register system will enable a person to verify online the authenticity of an apostille issued by the Competent Authority, in this case, it is the Singapore Academy of law. It is plain to see how beneficial the digitalisation of the apostille processes will be for the users of this systems. The processes would be made more secure, efficient and of course environment-friendly too. I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s view on my suggestion. I also have a query with respect to fees that will be charged for issuance of the apostille by the Singapore Academy of Law. I note that MFA currently charges $10 for the legalisation of each document. From my research, I noted that the average fee among Convention countries as at 2016 was 15 Euros, which translates to about S$24. However, there is a wide range from as low as one Euro to as high as 70 Euros. For the Apostille process to be cost-effective for fellow Singaporeans, the fee imposed should also be reasonable. I wonder whether the hon Minister will be able to guide us in this area. Sir, before I end my speech, may I say that this is an instance of how backbencher Members of Parliaments can contribute in this House through our respective areas of specialised professional knowledge. I daresay that save for practising lawyers and to be fair, the hon Member Mr Louis Ng who would be speaking after me, not many would have heard of the Apostille Convention. In fact, many Members were asking about this in the Members' Room earlier today.”
“Obliged, Sir. It seems to me that it is not working. Never mind Sir, in the interest of time, I will just proceed. I was about to show the legalisation process, but thankfully, the hon Minister had outlined the legalisation process. Without the Apostille Convention, there are four, possibly five stages, which are required to be undergone before the document in the state of origin, is recognised in the state of destination. With the Apostille Bill passed and Singapore's ratification of the Apostille Convention, this is reduced to a one-step process. That, as the hon Minister mentioned, translates to enormous savings of time and costs because you no longer have to go to the consulate authority to have the documents legalised. Not only that, as the hon Minister mentioned, the apostille once issued, is recognised in about 118 countries, which includes all the major countries in the world, the business centres in the world too. So, Singaporeans would get the benefit of the convention to have their vital documents issued by public authorities recognised in these countries. These documents include birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates It also, as the hon Minister mentioned, strengthen Singapore's a attraction as a premier business and international dispute resolution hub. This is because, oversees public documents can also be readily recognised here, for business purposes as well as for legal proceedings here. So, plainly there are many positives about this Bill. While Singapore may be a relatively late adopter of the Apostille Convention, it has an opportunity to be a leader in the digitalisation of the apostille process. Particularly in respect to two areas, e-Apostille and e-Registers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon Members may be forgiven if they view the debate on this Bill as boring, notwithstanding the valiant attempts of the speakers on this Bill, myself included. The fact is, that the topic of legalisation of public documents is hardly something that will excite one's senses. I, on the other hand, am feeling elated. Why? Because, I suggested in this House that Singapore ratify the Apostille Convention by way of a Parliamentary Question that came up for answer in this House on 20 November 2018. Then, the hon Minister for Law informed this House that the Government was looking into this matter. About two years later, the Apostille Bill is presented in this House for consideration. If passed, Singapore will likely become party to the Apostille Convention next year which incidentally is the 60th anniversary of the Convention. Whilst the subject matter of this Bill may be boring, it is one that can have positive impact for Singaporeans as outlined by the hon Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I be allowed to flash two slides on the LCD screen?”
“These figures are lower-bound estimates as they do not include self-employed persons, such as delivery riders or private hire car drivers. A lot of hard work has been put into this, so as to achieve these figures, but I think we can do much more. Remember, these are able bodied Singaporeans. Even though we assume that we have another 20% in self-employed jobs, I would suggest that our Government and whole of society can do much more to bring down the roughly 30% unemployment amongst our ex-offenders. This will be in accord with hon. Deputy Prime Minister's objective outlined in his Ministerial Statement about channelling additional support to vulnerable groups. It will be a good signal by our society to ex-offenders that we remain invested in their rehabilitation and reintegration even in these challenging times. I seek the hon Deputy Prime Minister's views on this. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I applaud the Government for taking decisive steps to protect the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans and transform our economy to be even more ready for the uncertain future that we face. The suggestions I have made are intended to ensure that Singaporeans who join our workforce continually upgrade themselves to grab the opportunities our future brings and to strengthen the inclusivity element of our Government’s strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic as outlined by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in his Statement. I support the Ministerial Statement.”
“She had delivered a very compelling speech. In that speech, she made a point that how we treat persons with disabilities is shaped by the attitude of society. I fully agree with her and I would say that a similar point can be made in relation to ex-offenders. In my speech in February 2020 on occasion of the Unity Budget, I applauded the introduction of Enabling Employment Credit or EEC to incentivise employers to employ and retain persons with disabilities. I also said that a similar credit scheme should be provided to incentivise employers to employ ex-offenders. I shared the story of Mr R, an ex-offender who was earning a depressed wage on account of his background. I continue to meet several residents who are ex-offenders who find it difficult to get jobs or are being underpaid during this pandemic. The hon Minister for Home Affairs shared useful statistics on the plight of ex-offenders just yesterday pursuant to my Parliamentary Question. He informed that the economic downturn brought about by COVID-19 has made the job market more challenging for ex-offenders. The Yellow Ribbon Singapore has stepped up its efforts to help these offenders and I must pay tribute to Yellow Ribbon Singapore and its partners for their stupendous work in getting work for ex-offenders so that they can complete their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. In terms of statistics, the hon Minister for Home Affairs mentioned that over the past years 2017, 2018 and 2019, the percentage of ex-offenders who found employment within three months are 55%, 56% and 53%. This year to date, I do not have a percentage but 1,534 ex-offenders have been employed, thanks to Yellow Ribbon Singapore.”
“" On the point about "doing so for every worker at every age", I wish to share an e-mail that I received from Mr John Tan, my resident. He is turning 35 this year. He is married with one bubbly son who is two years old. He applied for a three full-day Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) course. The total course time is 25 hours. He pointed out that for Singaporeans aged 21 and above, they get 40% subsidy. The original course fee was $1,016.50, with GST, so he had to pay $641.50, with GST. For Singaporeans aged 40 and above, however, they get 90% subsidy. For them, they need only pay $161.50, with GST. I do appreciate why we need to incentivise our older worker to upskill by providing them with a higher subsidy. Given the current challenging environment, there is an opportunity to up the tempo for upskilling and re-training even amongst our younger Singaporeans, so that they get into better-paying jobs with better prospects. I therefore suggest that we use a tiered approach that incentivises Singaporeans to re-skill as they get older instead of backloading the extra subsidies only when they reach 40. In this way, we will be able to nurture a reskilling attitude in all Singaporeans. Finally, I wish to speak on the Government’s additional plans to foster inclusive growth. I welcome these moves. The hon on Deputy Prime Minister said "In the design of our support schemes, we have been deliberate in channelling additional support to vulnerable groups, to help them access opportunities and stay in good jobs". This is a laudable objective. In particular, I support the plan to provide a higher tier of wage support of 50% under JGI to all Persons with Disabilities, a point that hon Member Ms Denise Phua made during her Adjournment Motion yesterday.”
“I think the pool of Singaporeans who are heavily in debt is bigger. I say this because in 2017, MAS introduced measures to tighten unsecured credit limits to those heavily in debt. In that announcement, MAS stated that there were an estimated 60,000 borrowers in this pool or 4% of total unsecured credit users. I would assume that this pool should have grown during this crisis with the declining economy, falling income and loss of jobs affecting some families. But if I am right, I would suggest more proactivity on the part of the Association of Banks in Singapore or ABS and the Credit Counselling Singapore to publicise this programme more so that they can reach out to individuals bogged down by this debt. It can also be made compulsory for financial institutions to consider inviting the debtors to SFRP (Unsecured) before considering legal action as a last resort. Before leaving this topic, it would be remiss of me if I did not commend the Financial Institutions & ABS for coming together with MAS and the Govt to implement SFRP (Unsecured) to help Singaporeans facing debt pressures. The Financial Institutions could have just insisted on the strict terms of their contract; they would not be wrong but they did not. It is a great example of SGUnited and how banks are helping Singaporeans facing the debt pressure as a result of the pandemic. Next, I suggest a re-look at the funding model for skills upgrading for Singaporeans. Skills upgrading for Singaporeans is an important pillar in our Roadmap for the Future as outlined by the hon Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister Heng said "We will…need extensive upskilling and continual reskilling of our workforce, to equip our workers to continue to get good jobs. We want to do so for every worker at every age.”
“Well, we have the COVID-19 Support Grant which was extended by the hon Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat. The extension now would cover Singaporeans who suffer a fall in income or lost their jobs after December 2020. This is welcome relief for the affected families. Not only that. He also extended the Workfare special payment to Singaporeans who did not receive Workfare last year, but did so this year. And, in this way, many low-income families, mind you, the WIS is triggered in relation to low-income workers earning $2,300 per month or less, so more low-income families would benefit from this extension. I think although we spend more, we spend it well to help these families. In my speech, I would like to concentrate on three budgetary measures for individuals. First, the Special Financial Relief Programme (SFRP) (Unsecured). I filed a Parliamentary Question or PQ on this earlier this month. I had suggested an extension of the programme in my PQ and I am glad to note that MAS has decided to extend this programme which is originally scheduled to finish in December 2020 to 30 June 2021. Under the SFRP (Unsecured), the savings for an individual can be significant. The average card interest on outstanding sums attracts 26% per annum. Converted loans under SFRP (Unsecured) are imposed 8% per annum over a five-year tenure. So, Singaporeans facing debt pressure are well advised to consider the SFRP (Unsecured) during this extended period. In my respectful view, the take up rate is low and can be improved. In his reply to my PQ, the hon Senior Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, informed that under this programme, financial institutions granted more than 8,100 conversions amounting to $200 million of personal unsecured debt.”
“Obliged. Sir, you have here an extract of a report from the Asian Intelligence which was issued on 23 September 2020. We see here, Sir, that Singapore is first among 12 Asian countries, in terms of the fiscal commitment to the COVID-19 fight. The stimulus package that we have endorsed in Parliament here amounted to 21% of the GDP. This compares to Japan, which is second, and comparatively, it comes in at 15.9%; South Korea comes in at 14.4%, and so on. So, from this perspective, Sir, we can see we compare relatively well. But it is not just the amount. It is also the positive impact on the lives and livelihoods in Singapore. It is worth restating what Deputy Prime Minister had said in his Statement that "The four Budgets are estimated to prevent the economy from contracting by 5.6% of GDP this year and 4.8 % next year." Furthermore, he said that "an estimated 155,000 jobs are likely to be saved in these two years too." At the same time, we owe a duty to spend the money well. What do I mean by this? Sometimes, we have to spend more; sometimes, we have to spend less. And the Budget itself is replete with some examples of this. Just a few hours ago, the hon Minister Ms Indranee Rajah, gave an example of how sometimes we need to spend less when she announced the Baby Support Grant scheme. She took pains to explain that the grant is aimed at couples who were put off by the COVID-19 pandemic and to encourage them to start and raise families. She also explained that for lower income families, there are already a number of grants and programmes to help them. So, from that perspective, it may not make sense to extend the grant and spend more money. On the other hand, there are programmes where we have to spend more to spend well. What are these programmes?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic outlined in the Ministerial Statement delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat on 5 October 2020. As the hon Member Mr Xie mentioned just now, the resources committed under the four Budgets are significant. It amounted to about $100 billion and this is on top of the other measures, such as special relief measures for debtors and tenants. I wish to offer a comparative perspective as to how we fare in relation to Asian countries. With your leave, Sir, may I be allowed to use the LED screen to flash the slide?”