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 6 of 25.
“I also look forward to hearing the plans that the Home Team has to strengthen its partnership with these volunteers. Mdm Chairperson, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Politically Significant Persons”
“It would be prudent to tackle these issues sooner rather than later. I wish to ask the hon Minister how does the Home Team intend to address its manpower constraints? Given the tight manpower situation across all sectors in Singapore, I accept that this is not an easy issue to resolve but we have no choice but to double down our efforts on this front. Our security and safety as a nation, depends on ensuring that our Home Team has an adequately sized force. We also need to ensure the well-being of our officers and not to constantly overload them. Can the hon Minister please give some details about the efforts to recruit and retain officers in the past few years? Since 2015, the Home Team has invested heavily in technology to enhance its operational effectiveness and productivity. Much of the innovation was driven by the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) which was set up in end 2019. The technology card however, should not be overplayed. The Home Team, on a daily basis, interfaces with our community. How can it ensure that it retains its human touch when interfacing with the community? How will the Home Team enhance its service delivery to make these services more accessible, efficient and convenient for members of the public? Finally, may I please ask how the Home Team can better tap on volunteers and community partners to achieve its mission? In this regard, I have sought and reviewed the figures that the Ministry provided to me on the recruitment numbers of Citizen on Patrol volunteers as well as Voluntary Special Constabulary officers. It seems to me that the recruitment figures are on the downtrend, generally. I would like to understand the reasons for this.”
“They accumulated more than 100 Investigation Papers per person and just got bogged down. Certainly, their morale and well-being suffered as a result. We should not return to those days. I recently had a chance to speak to an ex-colleague who retired as a Station Inspector. His daughter is serving in the Police Force. I recalled how proud he was when his daughter decided to follow his footsteps to join the men and women in blue. Now, unfortunately, his views have changed. He shared that almost every day – for a long period of time – his daughter has been working feverishly, often well beyond midnight. This has gone on to an extent where he is now actively advising his daughter to resign because as a father, he is concerned about her mental wellness. Coming from a decorated retired-Police officer, this is significant. I looked at the Police turnover figures. Whilst they are still relatively small, the numbers are trending up and have almost tripled from 2.06% in 2020 to 5.78 % in 2022. Anecdotally, I understand that the turnover figure for 2023 remains elevated. I would be grateful if the hon Minister could share the latest turnover figures. Part of the reason is because the private sector is able to attract these officers with higher pay and better work conditions. I accept that Home Team officers are a special breed. They are not drawn by salary alone. Home Team officers also know that: as uniformed officers charged with the responsibility of keeping our country safe and secure, they are expected to make sacrifices in the discharge of their duty to our country. Nonetheless, the combination of high workload of the Home Team officers and the lure of the private sector constitutes, in my view, a warning sign on the ability of the Home Team to attract and retain talent.”
“From a response to a Parliamentary Question I filed, I noted that between 2017 and 2021 the subject matter value of cases investigated by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) was $4.49 billion. My understanding is that the subject matter value of the cases for 2022 and 2023 continues to be high. Against this backdrop, our officers naturally will have to be better resourced to match not just these operational challenges but to deal with future threats too. How does the Home Team plan to do this? When giving the figures above, the Minister frankly admitted that this is not a sustainable situation. He also said that the performance and effectiveness of the force may deteriorate as a result. Should that happen, there will have an impact on our criminal justice system. Coming from the hon Minister, this is a red flag. Earlier this month on 6 February 2024, the hon Minister in response to a question posed by the hon Leader of Opposition in this House, candidly admitted that whilst Police officers have strong esprit de corp, the Police Force is facing a severe manpower shortage and this would ultimately have an impact on morale. When he shared his view, it brought back memories of my service as a regular in the Police Force in the investigation branch of a division in the early 1990s. Then, we faced a manpower crunch too. Investigating Officers (IOs) had 24-hour shifts, which meant they were on duty for about 36 hours at a stretch. The next day, they reported for work during office hours and this cycle repeated itself every three days. I believe hon Members who also served around the same time as I, such as Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Patrick Tay, would have undergone similar experiences. I have seen officers who could not cope with such high demands of their jobs.”
“Mdm Chairperson, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Madam, thanks to the dedicated service of the officers of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Home Team – past and present – Singapore continues to be one of the safest countries in the world with relatively low crime rates. They ensure the safety and well-being of Singaporeans in a more dangerous, risky world. The demand for their work has gone up, but the number of those who do this important and often hazardous work has not. In October 2023, I sought to understand the impact of the increased white-collar crime caseload of investigators from the hon Minister. I filed the Parliamentary Question after noting that the exponential rise of the sheer number of e-documents that these investigators have to parse through for each case. In his characteristic direct manner, the hon Minister shared some stark facts. He said over the past five years, scam cases went up 400%. The number persons arrested increased by 100%. The number of Police investigators, on the other hand, increased only by 7%. The rise in white-collar crime is an important sign of how the operating environment as a whole has become more difficult. The workload of the Police has shot up tremendously with the explosion of tech-related crime and scams all over the world, including Singapore. Criminals enabled by technology, are getting smarter too. With the transnational nature of most crime, solving cases and recovering stolen proceeds has become much more complex. Dark webs provide safe havens to conduct illicit transactions without being detected. It is, therefore, no wonder that the dollar value of crime is continuing to shoot up.”
“Mr Chairman, sir, may I seek a response to my cut speech on improving consular services for Singaporeans?”
“For overseas Singaporeans who get into distress, having access to MFA's consular services becomes critical. I am glad to note that the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs has gone on record to stress that assisting overseas Singaporeans is a priority for his Ministry. In the Addendum to the President's Address in April 2023, the Minister anticipated a greater demand for consular services post COVID-19. He also signalled that MFA will meet this increased demand by harnessing technology and through a new corp of professional first responders trained to provide 24/7 consular response to Singaporeans. What steps has MFA taken in this regard? How was technology leveraged to provide a better quality of consular services to Singaporeans? How does MFA assess Singaporeans' satisfaction level of consular services rendered to them? Engaging Singaporeans in Foreign Policy”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the issue of it being stable, that is an empirical fact. So, that is something that is being set out in the Budget Statement. So, as far as contributions are concerned, of course, there is a certain projection and is made by reference to a certain framework. So, there is no — I mean, subject to the assumptions inbuilt in the framework, it is not just plucking a figure out of the air.”
“Thank you, Sir. I think there is a false premise in the question. It is about the Government being hamstrung in relation to public information. I mean the point is this. As far as the Government is concerned, it puts out the operating revenue, it puts out the proposed operating expenditure and there are, of course, constitutional requirements to make sure that the Budget is balanced and it is against that backdrop that we can do the analysis as to whether the proposals meet the aspirations or the requirements of Singapore and Singaporeans for now and the future. So, I see this as based on a false premise and, therefore, I will not answer the question.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in reference to the hon Member Assoc Prof Lim's first question about the propriety of the assumptions, this is a point which has been discussed at length. Let me just say that what is relevant for the purposes of the Budget is the proportion of NIRC. Even if we were to put aside the assumptions of growth, the fact is that the NIRC, which is reflected in the Budget, has been relatively stable and it is now for every dollar that has been spent, 20 cents comes from NIRC. So, from the perspective of anybody proposing to spend more, these facts would be important. I do accept that my hon friend across the aisle may have a different view about the extent of the information that is needed. But the point I am making, and I guess we can agree to disagree, and I said this advisedly, that this actually is a red herring. Because all the information needed to calculate revenue is there, in terms of NIRC, in terms of the operating revenue expenditure which falls more or less within a defined variance as well. So, for these reasons, I think we are not disadvantaged. As far as the second point is concerned, and I stand corrected, I think my hon friend mentioned about whether the Government would be comfortable—I am sorry that I kind of stopped there, if the hon Member could just clarify the purport of his question, I will try my best to answer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to be pushed by the hon Leader of the Opposition. I think I will just basically deal with it on a point of principle, and while he can take suggestions from my colleagues from the PAP, I can also refer to suggestions made by hon Members from his party. I still remember an example of setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office and that was a proposal made in this House and there was really no understanding as to how much money that would entail in not just setting up the office but in terms of its operations as well. So, I would rather that the points I made not be obscured. Let us stick on the principle and the focus is really to make sure that the ugly head of populism does not rear in our politics. And, thankfully, that is a bipartisan point and I do hope that, on both sides, there will be an opportunity to reflect on the contributions I made in this House.”
“I thank the hon Leader of the Opposition for pointing out and asking whether the framework I have applies to hon members from both sides of the aisle. The short answer is yes. This is an exhortation not specifically to the hon Leader of the Opposition, or rather, hon Members from across the aisle, but it is actually from both sides of the aisle. And for anybody who wishes to make a proposal that involves extra spend, then you need to go through the analytical framework and I think then there will be clarity as to whether or not, ultimately, it is in the better interest of Singapore and Singaporeans to proceed with the extra spend.”
“If we were to go through the analytical framework that I have suggested, the point is really about a Member of the Opposition, for example, articulating that even more houses should be built than what the Government is proposing, then what really needs to be done is to, first, identify the programme, highlight and find out how much exactly is being spent or committed for the purposes of building X number of flats, for example, and then also, in the same process, nail his colours to the mast and say exactly what he stands for in relation to the number of flats that is to be built, why is this important and then deal with the financial issues by reference to the allocation of the spend for the other aspects of the Budget as well. What I think would happen through this articulation, using this framework, would be a laudable outcome, which is that the people of Singapore outside this House would know that it is something that is being proposed, there is seriousness in the proposal because the facts and figures are there and then you could juxtapose what is the Government's position on the matter against the hon Member's position.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Leader of Opposition for giving me an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of my speech. Let me just take the point about conscientious objection. I would like to clarify that what I was referring to in my speech was in relation to the fact that we do not disclose the full entirety of the value of our reserves. So, that is the reference to our conscientious objection. And it was in the context of referring to one of the economists featured in the article which the hon Leader of Opposition referred to. There, the economist said that we should know the full amount; then, we would know whether the spending is high or low. The reference to conscientious objection is really the arguments made by the Government in the Motion on national reserves which I am sure the hon Leader of Opposition is familiar with. But more importantly, I made the point that for the purposes of the Budget, if one can calculate the NIRC already and I made reference to the hon Prime Minister's masterclass, in relation to how the reserves are projected to grow and the fact that the NIRC contributions are relatively stable. As far as the issue of the purpose of referring to the article itself, I take the hon Leader of Opposition's point. I understand that it is really with the view to provide further feedback on the Forward Singapore exercise and I welcome them. Finally, the point that my hon friend referred to is in relation to the building project of HDB.”
“Very well, Sir. If that is the case, I will just end off by saying that the social imperatives are upon us. We all know this and it is no great epiphany to point these out. If we are to really say that we have a serious Government and a serious Opposition, as exhorted by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, the focus must fall on the generation of solutions to such imperatives and a reasoned articulation of why these solutions create better outcomes for our people whilst being fiscally prudent. And by democratic acclaim, let us stand behind the ones which we believe, as elected Members, most benefit the people of Singapore for now and the future and by so doing, reject populism in its strongest form. I support the Budget. [Applause.]”
“Rather, he must tackle the proposal head-on and explain why the current spending levels are sufficient and should be maintained, having regard not just to the specific issue but the big picture as well. Through this, we will gain a clear understanding of the points of agreement and disagreement as well as the reasons in support of the respective contentions. Singaporeans will be better able to follow the debate and the implications of the policy proposals should they be implemented or rejected. It is, of course, open to hon Members across the aisle to make their plans part of their election campaigns even if they may be rejected by the Government. That is their prerogative. But they must have such plans in the first place. If they do not, it is merely promising Singaporeans as a share of a piece of gold that disappears after election day. I view this as healthy politics as both sides will then present their cases to our people. In the end, it will be fellow Singaporeans who will judge and decide through the ballot box. This is how we prevent populism from rearing its head in our politics. This is how a high level of accountability to our people will be maintained.”
“But most importantly, as I said earlier, the NIRC amount can be estimated and that is the important part for Budget planning. For these reasons, I would say that there is no real obstacle for anyone of us in this House to articulate holistically why more money or more resources should be spent for a particular policy imperative. I will now provide an illustration on the working of the framework that I suggested by dealing with the Cost-of-Living imperative. In October 2022, the Government unveiled a support package to give Singapore households additional help to deal with rising prices. The amount of monies committed for these programmes is a matter of public knowledge – $1.5 billion. Deputy Prime Minister Wong, in his announcement, said that the package was designed to fully cover the increase in cost of living for lower-income households and to cover more than half the increase in the cost of living for middle-income households. It is entirely open to hon Members who wish the Government to spend more to tackle cost of living issues to make the case that the 50% mark is insufficient for middle-income households and argue that it should be higher, say, 60%, 70% or even 100%. They should articulate how such a move would be in the better interest of Singaporeans and Singapore as a whole. What then this leads to is the crystallisation of a sum that is needed to fund the advocated policy proposal from the reserves or elsewhere with the accompanying reasons. The political office holder responding to hon the Member's proposal, if he disagrees with the proposal, will be well advised not to simply shrug it off by labelling it as populist.”
“So, we roughly know what is the band of the NIRC which has remained stable and contributes about one-fifth of our revenue. We also know that the variance of the operating revenue and the expenditures within a band of about plus or minus 4%. Of course, there would be situations where the predictability may be affected by, say, market situations. For example, for property tax, it went up because the AV went up and that is a function of the market. For that kind of situations, all we can do is we make best predictions and then make adjustments as we go along. But these will be the inputs for which we would have available for the purposes of making sure that whatever we are articulating as policy proposals for more expenditure can be supported and fiscally prudent. The hon Leader of the Opposition made reference to an article which appeared on 19 February in The Straits Times and he pointed out that some economists had also made the point about lack of information being forthcoming from the Government. One point to note, as he had stated, is that most economists lauded the Budget. One economist had asked about the use of pre-funding Government programmes, for example, the Pioneer Generation package and he suggested that there should be more transparency in relation to this plan. But the reality is, every year, the statement of accounts is presented to Parliament. That statement of accounts is actually audited by the independent auditors. All MPs can ask questions and it is also subject to scrutiny of the Estimates Committee. And, of course, drawdowns are also subject to scrutiny of the Auditor-General. Another economist felt that the amount of past reserves should be disclosed. This is something which, as we all know, the Government has a conscientious objection to.”
“These imperatives require the attention of this House and the Government. In fact, I would say, as a backbencher, much of what I do in my constituency for my constituents revolve around dealing, amongst others, with such issues. Second, as responsible MPs, both sides of the House will reject spending for merely the sake of spending. This constitutes fiscal prudence. Hence, to make the case to spend more money will involve taking at least the following steps. First, an examination of the existing programmes that the Government has for the imperative in question. Second, a calculation of how much the Government is committing or spending on these programmes. Third, a performance assessment or review of the programmes. And finally, the articulation of the case for more spending on the imperative which will have to include dealing with the Government's points on "passive income" that the reserves currently provide and having sufficient ballast for the future. At this point, I would like to deal with the hon Leader of Opposition's point raised in his speech earlier that the Government should be even more forthcoming with information to make better decisions on the Budget. With respect, this is a red herring. There is already sufficient information available. In fact, at the last Sitting, the hon Prime Minister gave us a Master Class. Hon Members may recall he asked us to take out the back of our envelopes and follow him in doing the sums. He projected that the returns from the reserves at about 4%; he then said if we were to spend 2% for the Budget, that means 2% for the reserves. So, the reserves will grow at a rate of 2% per year and that more or less, keeps up with the GDP.”
“These included cost of living, social inequality, mental health and declining total fertility rate. To this list, the hon Leader of the Opposition, in his speech during the debate on the Motion added healthcare costs and intergenerational equity. Both hon Members advocated for the slowing of the growth of reserves so that more money can be spent on these areas. I, for one, do not see these human conditions as diseases or "ills" but as imperatives for the Government of the day, as moral directions for us to apply our best minds and our utmost resources. These social imperatives cannot be denied, but they cannot be solved by mere handwringing, or by profligate spending. Our duty is to be accountable in the way that I have outlined above, by a serious political commitment and spending our time, energy and resources in formulating and explaining our policies. Importantly, we need to be aware of the parameters of the hard choices at play and to reject the "fool's gold approach". To explain its hard choice in rejecting even more spending of the income from the reserves, the Government has stated that the reserves provide substantial "passive income" for expenditure in the Annual Budgets and given our unique vulnerabilities, we need to grow the reserves to ensure that we have a chance of overcoming what future challenge that may come our way. These points were articulated so well in my hon friend, Mr Shawn Huang's speech which I heard earlier today. Putting aside the use of monies from the reserves for the moment, I think there are two points arising from what both the hon Members have said that will find agreement on both sides of the House. First, that the social imperatives identified by both of them are legitimate.”
“We have reached a point in our country's development where solutions to most things are complex, and sometimes, finely balanced. It is characteristic for populist politicians to be short on details when advocating for a policy change. We politicians, from both sides of the House, need to do the homework, understand the background facts, and also understand how the status quo was forged, highlight the trade-offs inherent in the policy proposals, separate facts from fiction and then, go on to make arguments as to why the balance should be struck one way or another. I would also add one other point. Political leaders in office should eschew the tendency to just label policies as "populist", even though they may in fact receive broad support of citizens when what they really want to do is to make the policies sound unreasonable and irrational. This is a point that Francis Fukuyama made – and I agree with him. It is incumbent on leaders to go beyond labelling, highlight the precise aspects of the proposed policies that they are concerned about. It is this process of responsible contestation and distillation of ideas and proposals which, in my respectful view, will serve as a bulwark against the emergence of populism in its strongest form in Singapore. Through this process, there will be better accountability to our people. Our people, noting the areas where politicians are agreed and where they disagree, will be better placed to choose which future they wish to ascribe to through the ballot box. Let me underscore the point by making reference to the debate at the last session of Parliament on the national reserves. In opening the debate, the hon NCMP Mr Leong Mun Wai highlighted what he referred to as "social ills" that must be addressed.”
“Unlike bigger countries, small nations like Singapore, when they fall victim to divisive politics that populism brings, they will be easy for the picking. They would no longer be taken seriously by their bigger neighbours. Once that happens, small nations would not have the ability to protect and promote their national interests in the international arena anymore. In other words, we will have a "double whammy", domestically and internationally. Therefore, our commitment to reject populism in its strong form, must therefore carry a commitment to educate all Singaporeans to recognise it when we see it and call it out. Which brings me to my second caution. Fool's gold and the easy choice. The rejection of strong populism commits us to a specific duty. It is a duty to make hard choices, to be accountable to the people of Singapore, by way of political and practical solutions to the social imperatives of our nation. The critical difference between this "hard choice" approach and a populist approach to policies is two-fold. First, this should be done without the histrionics that populism often attracts. I must say here that I am for even more scrutiny of policy proposals and performance from political leaders, from both sides of the aisle. What I am against here the chest-beating, sabre-rattling politicisation of issues that get in the way of true analytical discourse. Without the "noise", there will likely to be better engagement on the substance of the matter. In the end, there will be clarity on what parties are agreed and what they are not. This is what we should aim for. I feel that this distillation process is essential. Otherwise, there is a danger of performative politics entrenching itself in this House. Second, I believe details matter.”
“In 1998, the late Mr Hugo Chavez, a charismatic Venezualuan leftist leader, came to power after promising to use Venezuala's vast oil wealth to reduce poverty and inequality. As President, he launched programmes that offered free or highly subsidised goods. He passed away in office in 2013. His policies continued though. In the end, the country's economy shrunk and hyperinflation set in, despite it being an oil producer. Again, let me identify the specific populist lever – which is to use price-distorting policies to give short-term, apparent benefits to people, at the cost of the country's long-term economic health. Both these acts are forms of strong populism to me. From my research, I noted a number of writers, particularly Prof Simon Tormey, who have observed that in recent times, the world is facing a populist insurgency. The fact that such political opportunists have taken in so many voters across so many countries, shows us that it is no easy matter to see populism for what it really is. We, as a country, therefore, need to develop the capability to recognise and emphatically reject this insidious and seductive form of divisive politics. If we do not do this, the consequences for us as a small nation will be serious. Just last week, I learnt about a speech that our first Foreign Affairs Minister, the late Mr S Rajaratnam, made in the UN General Assembly in October 1971. He said to the effect that small nations need to keep their own houses in order, to be able to secure their places in the world. In other words, small nations need to ensure that they retain social cohesion and political, as well as economic stability for the long term. The implication is clear.”
“But there are two further elements to populism. First, it is not always easy to see through grandstanding rhetoric and recognise opportunism in its true face. Second, populism is not always mere words – it also reaches into real policy action with a specific approach, which I call a "fool's gold" promise. Populism in action lulls people with the promise of easy money, soft compromises, zero trade-offs. These two elements – words and deeds – make up what I call "strong populism". And notwithstanding the forging of the agreement in Parliament, there remains no guarantee that this sort of populism will not take root in Singapore. Structurally, we will always be vulnerable. This is because, as in all modern democracies, we have a representative government, where a minority – that is the elected – represents our people, the majority, and has the mandate to govern. The suspicion that this representation is imperfect will always be there. We have seen several examples where people's fears, especially during crises, are capitalised by populist politicians espousing radical change. I will give two examples: one from the right and the other from the left. In November 2023, in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party, a far-right political party that fanned Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments amongst its people, with promises to de-Islamicise the country, made huge electoral gains and was the clear winner by a wide margin. It is poised to feature in a coalition government. Should that happen, it would not be difficult to imagine the impact on the cohesion of the country across race and religion. Let me identify the specific populist lever here – the use of religion and nativism to divide and polarise a country.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on 21 April 2023, during the debate on the President's Address in this House, there was an important agreement reached across the aisle between the hon Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, and the hon Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh. Both of them agreed that there is no place for populism in Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Wong characterised it as follows: "Both sides of the House, we stand for a democracy that is maturing, a serious Government and a serious Opposition. But we say no to populism and political opportunism ever taking root in this House and in Singapore." This was a laudable bipartisan moment. It is also recognition of the fact that in countries where populism has taken root, societies have become divided, people have become polarised and the trust between the people and the Government weakened. Singapore should not follow suit. The agreement, however, presumes that we know what populism is. But do we? Most academics and commentators agree that the core feature of populism revolves around the division between the "people" on one hand and "the elite" on the other. Cas Mudde stated, "It is a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, "the pure people" versus "the corrupt elite"; populist politicians advocate that they represent the "whole people" whereas the elite represents "special interest", regardless of the truth of the matter. The framing of issues is usually confrontational, antagonistic and emotive. This sort of populism – once we see it for the grandstanding and posturing – is really not very hard to reject. It is mere opportunism played out in the political arena. This is what I call "weak populism".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Minister of State how would MOE deal with situations where schools are merged to one entity and that merged entity also becomes defunct? Case in point is my alma mater, Monks Hill Secondary, which got merged to Balestier Hill Secondary and then, that also disappeared. How do we preserve the heritage and identity of such schools?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his question. The question I have is in relation to how do we make sure a decision is made in public interest for a person who is seen not to be able to function for an extended period of time? And drawing from this case, there are psychological issues, so how do we make a decision in the public interest to even consider termination of the person's employment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I, too, would like to express my condolences to the family of the late Sgt Uvaraja and I hope that, in due course, they will come to terms with the loss of their late son, brother as well as husband. Sir, my question is in relation to the SPF human resources policy. Having regard to a situation where there is a Police officer who has not been performing for quite an extended period of time – not attending work and also has psychological problems – and the natural tendency of Police officers to want to help their colleagues, how do we balance that against public interest, having regard to the fact that the Police officer has solemn duties and is also armed when he is on duty as well. How do we make sure that a decision in relation to his employment is made ultimately in the public interest and, hopefully, also to protect him in the long run?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information, may I convey to the hon member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, from a civil law perspective, these restraints of trade clauses are prima facie unenforceable, unless they are shown, and the burden is on the employer to be reasonable and there is a legitimate proprietary interest to protect? So, that is the position at law.”
“If memory serves me correctly, I believe this requirement was first imposed in the early 1990s as part of a talent retention programme. I note from the CPTL report that it is proposed that the practice training period for law graduates who are serving as officers be equalised with practice trainees who serve their practice training period in Singapore law practices. As a matter of principle, I support the parity, but may I please ask what is the Government's position on this matter, and if the Government accepts the CPTL's recommendation, may I ask how it proposes to deal with the original objective that led to the implementation of the different training periods for these officers in the first place? Sir, the proposed amendments under the LPA help underline the important principle that lawyers must not only know the law, but "why" they are lawyers. How we train lawyers cannot be a mere technicality or a mere process of mastering the practice of law, but must be a careful and continuous appreciation of the solemn obligations placed on all lawyers, as officers of the Court, to uphold the rule of law and conduct themselves as members of an honourable profession. I support the Bill.”
“The period of coverage is not just during the practice training period, but also after the training period, but before he or she is admitted as an advocate and solicitor. A significant difference between the proposal and the current regime involving part-called lawyers is that the period during which practice trainees can practise, with provisional practising certificates is proposed to be doubled. Currently, advocates and solicitors, before they can apply for a practising certificate, will have to take out a malpractice insurance under the Legal Profession (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Rules. May I ask if there are similar requirements for practice trainees applying for provisional practising certificates to take out insurance? If not, what steps will be put in place to ensure that there is an indemnity insurance in place, covering civil liability arising from the acts or omissions of practice trainees with provisional practicing certificates? Also, would law practices be required to pay extra premiums as a result of this arrangement? Next, and finally, I turn to professional training of Judicial Service or Legal Service Officers. Currently, different training periods apply to law graduates who seek admission to the Bar by working as an officer in judicial service, legal service or the Public Defender's Office. For them, six months of working as a judicial service officer (JSO) or legal service officer (LSO) is equivalent to one month of supervised training by a practice trainee in private practice. In other words, it typically takes three years for a JSO or LSO to complete the equivalent of six months' traineeship by a practice trainee, before he or she may be called to the Bar.”
“Notwithstanding that they can be members of the Law Society, only practitioner members may be elected to the Council of the Law Society. I am aware that there are other professional bodies which allow non-practising members to be elected into their respective councils. In my respectful view, given the unique duties of the Law Society as set out under the LPA, it is correct to continue to rely on practitioner members, with the requisite knowledge and experience, to be responsible for managing the affairs of the Law Society and ensuring that the Society discharges its statutory functions under the LPA properly. Nonetheless, given that it is now to be statutorily provided that non-practicing lawyers may be Law Society members, there will be a need for the Law Society to cater to their interests too. In addition, there is an opportunity for the Law Society to harness the energies and abilities of these new members in discharging its responsibilities. I express the hope that the Law Society members from all categories will be able to work together for the collective good of the legal community and, of course, our country. I now deal with the miscellaneous amendments proposed in the Bill on the process issues. First, I turn to the proposal to issue practice trainees with provisional practicing certificates, authorising him or her to practise provisionally after they have served six months of traineeship. I support the proposal. I note that the intention is to allow the practice trainee to do anything that an advocate and solicitor can do, provided that they are under the supervision of a supervising solicitor.”
“In its report, the CPTL highlighted that the pass rate for the Singapore bar exams between 2010 to 2016, which stands at 99%, compares very favourably with the pass rates in the Bar exam in England, which is about 70%, and the New York Bar, which is about 70% too. I accept that the standards of the Bar exam must be sufficiently high to ensure that persons who pass, have an adequate standard of academic quality. On the other hand, we must guard against the tendency to make the Bar exam harder than necessary. Otherwise, our young talents will miss the chance of being developed into lawyers and, ultimately, Singapore will be the loser. I have also noted some disquiet, expressed particularly in the social media amongst persons sitting for the Part B exam, who noted that the breadth of subjects being introduced for the Part B course are very wide and include specialist law areas. In addition, there is a concern that bell curve grading will be introduced for Part B exams. I seek the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's views on how it is proposed that a proper balance be struck in these circumstances. Here, we must be clear about the specific outcome that we want to achieve – it is not whether the 99% pass rate, on its own, is too high, or that 70% is too low. It is whether law graduates who pass the Part B examinations will be lawyers who can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with lawyers across the world and possess the competence to discharge their responsibilities well. On CPTL's third structural recommendation of uncoupling the admission to bar from completion of practice training contracts, I have an observation to make. I note that it is proposed that a non-practicing lawyer, in addition to be being admitted to the Roll of Lawyers, be also members of the Law Society.”
“I would be grateful for the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's response to this matter. Next, Sir, the practice trainees who are subscribed to longer training periods, will naturally be concerned about their remuneration for this extended period. Instead of getting lawyers' salaries, they will continue to get allowances for an extended period. At the same time, law practices currently are not allowed to charge clients for the work done by their practice trainees, under the supervision of their supervising solicitors. This will mean that law practices will have to incur higher costs, should they increase the allowances to be paid to practice trainees. The CPTL encouraged a review of this position, so that law practices will be able to defray the costs associated with a longer practice training period. May I ask if the Government supports the CPTL's position in this regard, and if so, when will the requisite amendments to the subsidiary legislation to allow law practices to charge for their trainees' work, be in place? This is not a matter of making profits for the firms, but really a point of fairness – if the trainees are doing work that add value to the client, the client should be willing to pay for it and the firm should be allowed to charge. The key is to create such a market with full transparency. Next, on CPTL's recommendation that the standard and stringency of the Part B examinations be raised, I understand that this is an issue that is receiving the attention of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, which is a Statutory Board set up under the LPA.”
“In fact, they may even be seconded to a company as internal counsel for up to three months. Also, it was felt that a six-month period was too short for a trainee to develop an aptitude to deal with the pressures of practice once he/she is called to the bar. This was, in fact, a point that was raised by junior lawyers in a focus group discussion that CPTL conducted. The CPTL further noted that, from a comparative study, that the training period in Singapore is much shorter than that of barristers and solicitors in the United Kingdom (UK), Hong Kong, Australia and several other countries. Quite clearly though, the key outcome we are looking at is not just the length of the training, but the quality of the lawyer who emerges from it. And this outcome depends largely on the supervising solicitors. This was a point that was specifically highlighted by the CPTL. I am aware that, already, there is a checklist that the trainees would have to tick off against, to ensure that they get the requisite exposure. I also note that the CPTL has made recommendations, such as "training the trainer" courses, designating a "training partner" in firms with six or more lawyers and so on. Furthermore, supervising solicitors' responsibilities are also spelt out under the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011. May I please ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary: what redress can we provide to trainees who are not getting the exposure, training and mentorship that they are supposed to get from their supervising solicitors? Anecdotally, there are cases of trainees not getting the requisite exposure from their supervising solicitors. At the same time, they are naturally concerned about the possible impact on their own career should they raise issue about such matters to their firm.”
“His Honour stated as follows, and I quote: “Law is not the only choice for those who have managed to secure a "fistful of "As", as one interview put it to us…If it is the lure of financial rewards that draws you, you should look at other options or be prepared for disappointment." I wish to pick up one point that was left unsaid but, nonetheless, clear to everyone who is familiar with the developments then. The quality of our lawyers determines the quality of our Judiciary. Hence, ensuring the quality of our young lawyers, not just in terms of skills and knowledge but values, will have an impact, over time, on the quality of our Judiciary which, we all recognise, is an important and co-equal pillar in our Westminster-styled Government. Maintaining the quality of the Judiciary is a national imperative. And I need only quote the hon Minister for Law who, in 2018, said in this House: "When the quality of the Judiciary suffers, the rule of law suffers. When the rule of law suffers, the country suffers". It was in that context, that the CPTL made three key structural recommendations in 2018 which the Government subsequently accepted. They are: (a) lengthening the practice training period from six months to a year; (b) raising the standard and stringency of the bar exams known as "Part B examinations"; and (c) uncoupling the admission to the Bar from the completion of practice training contracts. I support these recommendations but have a few queries on the recommendations which I will deal with in turn. On the lengthening of the practice training period, the CPTL, in its report, identified two main reasons to recommend the doubling of the training period. In the new regime, each trainee would be required to rotate to contrasting practice areas to gain more exposure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to properly understand the reasons for the proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1966, or LPA, that we are considering today, it is important to appreciate the genesis of the process. It began with the key idea of a reminder to all of us who live under the rule of law – that law is a profession, not an occupation, in that lawyers must strive to serve the public interest. As was mentioned by the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary just now, in 2016, the honourable Chief Justice, established the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (CPTL) headed by the honourable Justice Quentin Loh to “conduct a root-and-branch review of the professional training regime for trainee lawyers”. Some of the drivers for this review were: one, the fast-changing legal environment which required lawyers to work collaboratively over borders; two, the advent of Artificial Intelligence that have the potential to redefine the role of lawyers and the provision of legal services to clients; and three, the increasing savviness of clients; particularly corporate clients. The focus was to identify, and I quote, "measures to strengthen the entire professional training regime such that the quality of training remains robust”. What is key is that training is not to be understood as merely the development of professional skills. The CPTL emphasised the need to teach trainees the deeper purpose associated with acquiring the skills. If law is a profession and if lawyers have a duty to serve the public, then trainees must be imbued with important values such as compassion, courage and commitment to serve justice and integrity. The honourable the Chief Justice put this point across poignantly in his speech in 2016 when he announced the set-up of CPTL.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify, my concern was less in relation to the PDO officer being able to discharge his duties in cross-examination, more in relation to him refraining from taking the instructions from the accused in putting certain positions during cross-examination and that may lend him in an invidious position, when after the fact, the accused who may then be convicted, saying that he has not been given a fair defence. That is the point I was trying to raise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note from the hon Minister for Law's response that PDO has employed a principled stance in defending accused who have been accused of committing morally reprehensible offences. This is actually in line with the ethos of lawyers in the Criminal Bar. I recall the words of the late Mr Subhas Anandan, known as one of the doyens in the Criminal Bar, and he said that everybody deserves a fair trial, including those who have been accused of committing heinous crimes. Sir, my question is in relation to the dealings of the PDO officers with such persons. Sometimes, PDO officers may deal with requests on the part of such accused person to put certain lines of questions to vulnerable victims. And PDO officers, based on their assessment, they may not want to take up such lines. For example, cross-examining a vulnerable victim in relation to the person's sexual background and so on. How do we protect PDO officers in these circumstances? Because what we do not want also, is to have an allegation made against such a PDO officer and he has to deal with it in the disciplinary setting.”
“Sir, it is about whether the Prisons have a institutional practice of reaching out to transgender —”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note the nuanced approach in dealing with the transgender prisoners. I have two supplementary questions. First, may I ask the hon Minister for Home Affairs whether there have been any instances of transgender persons being assaulted, particularly sexually assaulted in our Singapore Prisons and what steps have been taken to deal with that? And secondly, I wonder whether there is a regime put in place by the Singapore Prisons Service where transgender persons are regularly interviewed to see how they are faring so that we can make sure that they are safe in the prison environment?”
“Yet, our Malay community fully embraced the concept of a Singapore for all races and religions. Thankfully, as a result, we secured peace and harmony that contributed to the prosperity and progress of all our people. This spirit is once again exemplified by the responsible approach and stance that has been taken by our Muslim friends, particularly our Malay/Muslim community, in dealing with Gaza crisis. We should never forget this. My sincere thanks to our Malay and Muslim communities in Singapore. Thank you.”
“They also drew succour from the Singapore Government's position expressed in voting for UNGA resolutions since 1967 which involved, amongst others, advocating for a two-state solution where both the states of Israel and Palestine are recognised; the refusal to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; condemning the illegal construction of settlements by Israel; and calling for an immediate and sustained humanitarian truce to the current crisis. Their response, collectively, has been in form of prayers for relief from the suffering of affected people; emphasising the Islamic message of peace, compassion, kindness and fairness; and providing assistance through trustworthy and credible channels to help those affected by the tragedy. If ever there is a silver lining to this tragedy, they noted the renewed discussion within the international community on the two-state solution which is now increasingly seen as a necessity and bulwark against perpetuation of further violence in future. Mr Speaker, sincere thanks are due to our Muslim community for taking this principled approach in dealing with this humanitarian crisis. We should recognise, with the developments across the world, particularly amongst Muslim countries, this is not an easy position for our Muslim Singaporeans to take. In 1965, when Singapore was founded, our founding father and 1st Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, exhorted all racial communities, including our Malay community, to build a Singapore for all Singaporeans from all races. What may not have been sufficiently highlighted then and now is the fact that when Singapore became independent, our Malay community, which was the majority race before independence, became a minority race thereafter.”
“Should a terrorist attack happen here and hostages are taken, we would expect Singapore to retaliate in self defence, in accordance with public international law too. On the point of retaliation in self defence, the requirements under international law are clear. Unfortunately, in conflicts, the total avoidance of civilian casualty is impossible. However, there are principles such as necessity, not targeting civilians, proportionality and avoiding unnecessary suffering which, when applied, will have the effect of reducing such casualty. I also understand from my Muslim friends that Mufti's message was reinforced during Friday sermons and delivered by the imams at our mosques. In these sermons, a call was made to pray for world peace in these troubled times and to advocate "goodwill and peace". I have spoken to a good number of my Muslim community leaders, friends and residents in Bukit Batok on Mufti's message. Without exception, the Mufti's message resonated strongly with them. Each of them told me that, personally, they are deeply affected by the humanitarian crisis. The numerous videos and news articles that they have received from social media platforms conveying the brutal tragedy of the war have affected their conscience. At the same time, they accept that these developments should not affect the peace and harmony with fellow Singaporeans.”
“A number of organisations have propagated violence at the demonstrations, which will inevitably lead to even more polarization along racial, religious and also nationality lines. Singapore is not immune to these developments, but due to the principled stances taken by the leaders in our Muslim community, we have largely avoided polarisation between communities. I was deeply struck by what the Mufti of Singapore, Ustaz Nazirudin Mohd Nasir stated in his lefter to the Chief Rabbi of Singapore: He said: "There is no place or justification for any form of violence and brutality on civilians by anyone, including Hamas, or in any retaliatory response. The right of civilians to live peacefully must be protected at all times". [Mr Speaker in the Chair] He further noted that both Islam and Jewish scriptures emphasised the human need for mercy and compassion. Finally, he propagated the model of peaceful coexistence amongst communities as a solution to the Middle East crisis. Unlike so many others outside Singapore, the Mufti separated the violent acts of humans from the religions of Islam and Judaism. Religion is not responsible for this crisis. This is worth emphasising in times like this when lines are drawn precisely along religious lines. The Mufti deplored the violence and deaths arising from both the terrorists acts of Hamas as well as from Israeli military operations. I particularly felt the calling out against terrorist acts of Hamas was important for a diverse, multiracial and religious country like Singapore. As was mentioned numerous times by our Government leaders, Singapore is not immune to a terrorist attack.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I support the motion. In my speech, I wish to focus on the response of our Singapore Muslim community, particularly our Malay/Muslim community. I would like to pay tribute to them for taking a courageous and principled stance in relation to the deepening humanitarian crisis arising from Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel on 7 October 2023, and the subsequent Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. Across the world, we have seen, troublingly, a deepening divide across religious lines spilling, on many occasions, into overt hate crimes as a response. In the US, a landlord was charged with murder and hate crime for killing a 6-year-old Muslim boy and seriously wounding his mother in Illinois. The landlord allegedly did so because of their religion and the conflict between Hamas and Israel. There were numerous reports from US-based news agencies pointing to worsening Islamophobia leading to hate-fueled attacks and other discriminatory incidents in the country. At the same time, antisemitism was also reported to be on the rise across the world. For instance, just on 3 November 2023, the UK Guardian reported that Jewish people in Britain experienced the worst wave of hate incidents in modern times with more than 1,000 recorded to date. In the US, Reuters reported that antisemitic incidents rose by about 400% in two weeks since the Hamas led attack in Israel. We have also seen demonstrations in many major cities where anger is being openly stoked with very divisive messages. The narrative is often styled on an "us versus them" basis.”
“In a similar vein, I seek the hon Minister of State's explanation on the proposal to vest in the Registrar the power to not register a specified society unless the rules of the society include or exclude provisions that the Registrar may direct. This is set out in clause 3(c) of the Bill. Again, having regard to the constitutional provisions that I have highlighted earlier in my speech, may I ask what the ambit of this power will be? And I understand from the hon Minister of State's speech that it is meant to be used where national interests are engaged. But interestingly, unlike the power when you are dealing with amendments of rules, which is spelt out in clause 8(c) of the Bill, the grounds in respect of which the Registrar may invoke a direction to amend the rules is absent, when it comes to requiring the applicant to amend the rules at the point of application before the society is even registered. So, there is a dichotomy in the approach. May I ask the hon Minister of State whether it is contemplated that the power would always be exercised in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution? Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.”
“Save for the enumerated circumstances, it is provided in section 4(1) of the Act that the Registrar shall register the society upon certain conditions being fulfilled. The current arrangement makes good sense as it gives primacy to the constitutional right of Singaporeans to form associations, save in certain circumstances. At the same time, there is clarity on the basis upon which the Registrar can reject a society’s application. This was specifically acknowledged by Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in this House in the same speech. He said and I quote, "In the first instance, the Registrar will have the discretion to look at applications. But his discretion is not an unfettered one… He bases his discretion on the Act itself. Section 4 of the Act sets out the premises upon which he can reject a society's application." Under clause 3(a) of the Bill, it is proposed that the Registrar is vested with a discretion instead. The word "shall" is proposed to be replaced with "may". On the face of it, it is proposed that the Registrar is to be given a certain measure of discretion to decide whether or not to register a specified society. On the face of it, the ambit of discretion is not specifically spelt out, save that it is subject to several circumstances set out in section 4 where the Registrar has the specific power to refuse registration of specified societies. May I ask the hon Minister of State how would such a proposed amendment be aligned with Article 14 of the Constitution and the purpose behind section 4 of the Act as spelt out by Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in this House in 2004?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make just two short points in my speech. I start by highlighting Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Under Article 14(1)(c) of the Constitution, all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations. However, this is not an untrammelled right. Article 14(2) specifically provides that Parliament may impose restrictions by law as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore, public order or morality. Further, Article 14(3) allows Parliament to impose, by law, restrictions relating to labour or education. The Societies Act 1966 is a piece of legislation that Parliament passed to impose the restrictions contemplated in Article 14(2). We can appreciate, therefore, that the Act performs an important gatekeeping function. Indeed, in 2004, when the Act was last amended, the hon Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs then, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, stated as follows in this House and I quote, "The Societies Act plays a gate-keeping role in ensuring that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or pose a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore, or which will be contrary to our national interests are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore." The operative provision is section 4 of the Act which vests with the Registrar the power to refuse the registration of a specified society in enumerated circumstances. These include situations where, in the opinion of the Registrar, the specified society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace as contemplated in Article 14(2) of the Constitution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, the second area for clarification is whether the Government would consider prescribing the Minister with powers to issue subsidiary legislation to allow businesses to conduct CDD? It would be a bit faster than the current situation where you have specific legislation. For example, precious stones and metal dealers, through legislation, they would now have to deal with CDD requirements. Just so that we can, hopefully, be at least at pace with the criminals.”