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 8 of 25.
“To give the Tribunal wide latitude to determine what is just and equitable having regard to the circumstances of the case. As was mentioned during my speech earlier, there is one narrow exception to the rule of not involving the child – where the Commissioner learns about the parent having a record of ANA during conciliation proceedings with the child. Here the issue of wanting to prevent the child from re-traumatisation would be moot because he was already being put on notice. It is specifically provided in the Bill that the child in these circumstances would have an opportunity to participate in the proceedings to get permission —”
“The hon Member Mr Ng asked what is required evidentially to show a "good arguable case". I explained in my earlier speech that the standard of proof that the parent has to discharge is not low. It is higher than a "prima facie" case but lower than a case made out on a balance of probabilities. I wish to also add that, ordinarily, the records should speak for themselves. Contrary to what the hon Member suggested, there should not be too much subjectivity involved when it comes to perusing and understanding the contents of the records. Furthermore, the Tribunal consists of persons with a wealth of experience. The President and Deputy President of the Tribunal, who heads each Tribunal, have the qualifications of a District Judge. The Tribunal is well equipped to make evidential assessments and determine in each case whether the parent has discharged his burden. The hon Member may then ask why give the parent who has an official record of ANA the right to ask for permission to apply for maintenance from his child. The reason is really to ensure fairness and justice for the parent. He should, for example, be allowed to argue that the document providing details of his case does not objectively suggest that he has a record of ANA or that it does not present a full and accurate picture. The hon Member invited me to provide guides, some guidance to the Tribunal on how it should proceed with its duties in assessing whether or not to grant permission. Respectfully, I would demur. I mentioned that the Tribunal consists of experienced people who are more than qualified to make determinations without such assistance. In fact, the policy objective is quite the opposite.”
“The child will have to undergo a compulsory conciliation process before the matter heads to the Tribunal. The conciliation process alone can take – off the top of my head – about six months. Should the case not settle at conciliation, it is then referred to the Tribunal. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the child may give evidence of his or her parent's abandonment, neglect or abuse (ANA), which the Tribunal is bound to consider before making a decision on whether it is just and equitable to order that the child pays maintenance to the parent. What is proposed here is that where there is objective evidence in form of official records of ANA, then the parent cannot commence action against the child unless he gets permission of the Tribunal. The policy objective here is to prevent the child from being re-traumatised in situations where it is plain and obvious that parent would not be granted an order of maintenance on just and equitable grounds because of his record of ANA. It is worth emphasising that in the focus group discussions that were organised, almost all participants who came from troubled family backgrounds were of the view that it would be better for them not to be told of their parents' application for permission at this stage. The professionals who deal with family violence cases also told us that children in such circumstances would probably suffer from significant emotional pain triggered by past events involving their parents. It is a point that was echoed by several Members who spoke in favour of this amendments just now. Where the parent is established to have an official record of ANA, it is not as crucial to have the child's involvement to enable the Tribunal to make a decision whether permission ought to be given.”
“Yes, certainly. In relation to what Mr Louis Ng said about his case theory – I had read his speech which he left on his chair while he was away – I think Mr Ng may have overrated my ability to speedread his speech and write a 12-page speech which I delivered just moments ago. But I will take some credit for being prescient enough to have noted some of the points that he wanted to raise in his speech. The hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, argued for the child to participate in the proceedings initiated by the parents who have had records of abandonment, neglect or abuse (ANA), to get permission to apply for maintenance from their children. He pointed out that the child may wish to have the opportunity to decide whether or not to participate in the application for permission. He also wondered how the Tribunal would be able to determine if there is a good arguable case to grant permission without the child's involvement since he or she would have been a victim of the parents' abandonment, neglect or abuse. He further postulated that it may be traumatic for a child who was not involved in the permission application to be, quoting his words, "suddenly told that they face a maintenance application", as the Commissioner or Tribunal found that there was no abandonment, neglect or abuse, without hearing the child. In response to the hon Member, it may be useful to remind ourselves about the starting point today under the Act. Under the Act today, where a parent commences an application against his child for maintenance, the child is drawn in immediately. There is no prior screening conducted against the parent to establish if he had a record of abandonment, neglect or abuse of the child.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your indulgence. Maybe before I start my speech, I just want to respond very quickly —”
“Second, such a tie, however, may or may not entail specific duties. Here, the law is quite clear that the moral basis for the existence of such duties rests on whether the parent has fulfilled a minimum level of care. Here, the test is a purely negative one. As long as the parent has not abused the child or treated him poorly, a duty is born. Again, this makes no pretence about the quality of parenting as a requirement, merely the minimum providence of some basic needs for a child. In short, one does not have to be a good parent, merely not a very bad one, to be able to make claims on a child. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this law does not circumscribe the Government's commitment to a citizen, which has a fairly neutral lens in relation to his parenting profile. That is to say, a man may be a terrible father but he is still a citizen and one does not have to be a good citizen – however this is defined – to benefit from the state's provision of resources towards one's welfare, which includes housing, healthcare, food and a certain quality of life. Mdm Deputy Speaker, this law underwrites a fact of public life, one which obliges us to use our tax dollars to maintain a man who has abused his children and so, in this instance, it can be said our obligations to each other, at least in dollar terms, exceed that of even a child to his father. I see this as a strength – that this law both limits the obligations of a child towards his abusive parent and spells out our obligations to each other as fellow citizens.”
“There could be situations where gag orders are imposed, preventing the disclosure of information on the identity of accused persons because their identities can lead to the establishment of the identities of the victims. This is particularly so where the accused persons could be the victims' parents. In a situation where the parent whose identity is protected by a gag order, subsequently applies for maintenance from a child, it is necessary to provide the Commissioner and the Tribunal, which are quasi-judicial bodies, access to information that may be relevant to establishing if the parents have records of ANA. On the other hand, there is a need for safeguards to be in place so that the rationale behind the imposition of the gag order is not thwarted. For these reasons, safeguards have been provided to limit the purpose of access to information protected by the gag order to only for the purposes of ascertaining if the parent has a record of ANA. In addition, there is a strict prohibition against disclosure to any other person save for the Commissioner, the Tribunal, the parent and the applicant for permission. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have said that this law deals with difficult questions. However, these amendments provide us with not easy, but practical answers. They are a response to these questions which rests on our collective values. I think it is worth spelling these out so that the policy intent is clear. First, that there remains a tie between a child and his parent, one which is born of the bare fact of the relationship rather than the quality of such relationships. That alone allows us a basis to consider cases as falling under this law. This underlines the importance of the family in the Singapore context.”
“How about cases where there are existing orders made in favour of parents even though they have records of ANA against their children? As was mentioned by the hon Member Mr Seah in his speech, the sense is that in the past, there may have been cases where the children may have decided to just give in to their parents' demands for maintenance so as to avoid traumatisation and distress. This Bill offers stronger protection against this. So, what is the recourse for such children? The Bill provides a procedure for them under the proposed section 8 in the Bill. They may make an application to rescind or vary the maintenance order on the basis that their parents have records of ANA. When such applications are made, the Tribunal, under the proposed section 14A in the Bill, will have powers to conduct screening against the parents and obtain the necessary information on the parents' records of ANA too. The Tribunal, should it be satisfied that the parent has a record of ANA that was not previously considered at the time when the maintenance order was made, will have the power to vary or rescind the maintenance order. Finally, Madam, I would like to elaborate on the reasons why bespoke provisions dealing with the disclosure of information that was originally subject to gag orders by the Court are necessary for the purpose of establishing whether the parent has a record of ANA. This is provided for under the proposed section 14A in the Bill. Typically, the Court imposes gag orders in circumstances where it is necessary to protect identities of minors or victims of criminal offences, especially victims of sexual crimes.”
“Since 2010, conciliation has been proven to be more successful in addressing and resolving the core issues between the parties and also has resulted in the savings of significant time and resources. I now deal with appeals against the decision of the Tribunal to the General Division of the High Court. Under the proposed section 18(3A) in the Bill, it is provided that an appeal may be brought against the Tribunal's decision not to grant permission to the General Division of the High Court. Whilst not expressly stated, this also means is that, subject to the High Court's powers under written law, including sections 16 and 17 of the Act, there is no appeal contemplated against the decision of the Tribunal where permission is granted for a parent to apply for maintenance. In addition, any appeal under the proposed section 18(3A) must satisfy the conditions in the current 18(2) of the Act, in that the appeal must involve a question of law or of mixed law and fact. Otherwise, the decision of the Tribunal is final, as is the case now. Also, unless the High Court directs otherwise, the appeal documents should not be served on the child. The appeal is also to be heard and determined without informing or involving the child. This is again consonant with the aim of the Bill, which is to spare the child who has been subject of ANA by his parent the distress of being informed and involved in the appeal proceedings. This position also applies in the situation where the child was originally informed and involved in the application for permission before the Tribunal. The appellant's interest is nonetheless safeguarded since the High Court has powers to issue directions requiring the child to attend the hearing of the appeal in appropriate circumstances as it sees fit.”
“Whether or not, as a matter of fact, the parent has abandoned, neglected or abused the child will continue to remain relevant at the hearing – relevant but not determinative. This is specifically provided for in the current section 5(4) of the Act. I now move to the circumstances in which the child may be allowed to participate in proceedings on the application for permission. As can be seen from the proposed section 3B(2) in the Bill, there is only a narrow exception to the rule that the child is not to be informed nor involved in the proceedings. This is because the policy objective is to prevent the child against whom the parent had a record of ANA from being subject to distress. Where, however, in a situation where the application for permission is filed arising from the discontinuation of conciliation, where information of the parent's record of ANA surfaced, the child would already be informed of the parent's claim. As I mentioned earlier, it is probable that the child would be the one who surfaces information pertaining to the parent's record of ANA. Here, in these specific circumstances, it is provided that if the child so wishes, he will be informed and he may be involved in the proceedings. This will enable him to lead evidence on matters pertaining to the parent's record of ANA that he surfaced at the conciliation. This must be so as a matter of fairness. In the event the Tribunal gives permission to allow the parent to claim maintenance from the child, then under the proposed section 12A(4) in the Bill, the matter should be referred for conciliation as per the current process. The current amendments are not meant to detract from the "conciliation-first approach" adopted by way of amendments to the Act in 2010.”
“However, for cases where it is contemplated that permission will be refused, then a three-member Tribunal must be convened to make such a determination. This measure will safeguard the parent's interest in ensuring that his case is adequately deliberated before a decision is made against him. I now come to the important issue of threshold upon which the President, Deputy President or Tribunal will have to decide whether permission should be given. This is provided for in the proposed section 3B(7) in the Bill. In essence, it is provided that permission may be granted if there is a good arguable case at two levels: first, that the parent did not commit ANA; or second, the child should still maintain the parent on just and equitable grounds. Why provide the second level? This is because a record of ANA involves not just a matter of fact, which is dealt with at the first level, but a matter of degree, in respect of which the second level is meant to address. What is meant by a "good arguable case"? Here, we adopted the reasoning in a 2018 Court of Appeal decision and intend that it means that the applicant should have the better of the argument. This threshold is more than a "prima facie" case, but lower than that of a balance of probabilities. What this also means is that the decision of the Tribunal at this stage is not dispositive of the ultimate issue at the hearing, which is whether, under section 5 of the Act, it should make a maintenance order against child if it considers it just and equitable that the child should maintain the parent. The Tribunal's grant of permission under section 3B in the Bill is not intended to tie its hands in relation to its deliberation and decision on the ultimate issue.”
“Second, where the Commissioner notifies the person that the parent has a record or purported record of ANA. This is a consequence of the new requirement under clause 15 of the Bill that vest with the Commissioner the power to ascertain if the parent is believed to have a record of ANA of the child. This screening requirement is independent of the declaration by the parent. And third, where a conciliation officer discontinues any conciliation in respect of the child's maintenance of the parent upon noting that the parent has a record or purported record of ANA of the child. Here, we are dealing with a scenario where the parent did not raise any record of ANA in his declaration and the Commissioner did not detect any record through his screening. As a result, the matter would have headed to conciliation as per the current process. It is contemplated that the child may raise facts suggesting that the parent has a record of ANA. Hence, we provided that the conciliation should stop in such circumstances and the parent should get permission from the Tribunal before it may resume. In short, the parent, the Commissioner and the child are all possible sources of notice of ANA. Under the proposed section 3(B)(3) in the Bill, the President or Deputy President may grant permission, but if he or she is of the view that there is a significant possibility that permission should not be granted, then a three-member quorum should be convened to make a decision, which can include the referring President or Deputy President. The policy intent here is to allow the President or Deputy President the power to act singly to give permission for the parent in question to commence proceedings in straightforward cases. This promotes efficiency.”
“As can be seen in the rest of my speech, these are not easy issues – to what extent is a person entitled to rely on his children for support, to what extent a person's freedom to use his own money as he sees fit, is constrained by his duty to his parent, and finally, to what extent is the state responsible for a man when even the most intimate ties of family fail? I would like to join hon Member Mr Seah in expressing sincere thanks and gratitude to each and every person who have been involved in this journey. I think it is also appropriate to pay tribute to the then hon Nominated Member of Parliament, Prof Walter Woon, who, almost three decades ago, in 1994, mooted the need for this House to legislate maintenance of parents by their children as a last resort in certain circumstances. When he tabled the Maintenance of Parents Bill, it generated some level of controversy in and outside the House. Now, the policy underpinnings of the Maintenance of Parents Act are received as wisdom. Prof Woon was ahead of his time. It is a visionary piece of unsentimental legislation – one which spells out the obligations of a child to his parent, and more importantly, as we shall see today, the limits of such obligations. Madam, in my speech, I will elaborate on the proposed mechanism in the Bill requiring parents with records of abandonment, neglect or abuse, which I will refer to collectively as "ANA" in my speech, to first seek the Tribunal's permission before proceeding with the claim without informing or involving the child. The Tribunal's permission will be needed in the following three circumstances as provided for in the proposed section 3B in the Bill. First, where the parent's declaration under section 3A states he has a record of ANA of the child.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I consider it an honour and privilege to be in the hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng's workgroup that was tasked to review the Maintenance of Parents Act. As hon Members know, it is not often that we get a chance to be directly involved in the conceptualisation and, if passed by this House, the passage of a Private Member's Bill. The remit of the workgroup was to improve the workings of the Act and to ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose for the foreseeable future. This Private Member's amendment Bill represents the culmination of a stupendous amount of work put in by the workgroup, its partners and stakeholders over the past two years. Insofar as ideas for improvement were concerned, we started from a clean slate – meaning we looked at all aspects of the current law and its practice. Together, we organised focus group discussions, ran surveys and issued a public consultation paper. Through these platforms, we gathered public feedback on the Act, identified areas for improvement, brainstormed and formulated proposals that were then stress-tested with the participants and thereafter reviewed once again. Finally, the accepted proposals had to find expression through the words in the Amendment Bill. It is heartening to note that many fellow Singaporeans from all walks of life stepped up to provide their valuable views at every stage of the consultation. This Bill is a testimony of the inputs and deliberations that the workgroup received in its distilled form. It derives its strength from our collective ideas and our pursuit of common values, and the sense of justice for all parties.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of information, in relation to the hon Leader of the Opposition's query as to whether CPIB looked at the Minister's Code of Conduct, I just would like to offer that, in any corruption investigation, to establish corrupt intent, one looks at what are the guiding principles. A Code of Conduct would be very relevant to establish corrupt intent. In fact, there is a two-point rule that has been established at law. One is whether there has been a breach of Code of Conduct; and secondly, whether there is guilty knowledge that is associated with the action.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have two questions. The first is to hon Senior Minister Teo. Given the fact that he was installed as the head of the chain of command in relation to the dealings pertaining to 26 Ridout Road, now that we have established the facts, if you were to turn the clock back, are there any facts that you would have expected to be raised to your attention? I am not seeking an elaborate answer, a brief answer on that would suffice. My next question is to the hon Minister Shanmugam. Given the sheer size of the property at 26 Ridout Road, there have been some comments in the public about whether Ministers living in such private properties have a connection with the people and would be able to relate to the people, and also whether such acts engender a picture of inequality in Singapore. I wonder whether the hon Minister has a response to that.”
“Given that the proposed offences under the Bill also involve the same subject matter, I believe there is a case for including these offences into the Sixth Schedule. Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is a public good for us to see the shape of the beast when it is financing great evil in the world. But the difficulty is that the private entities have always had little incentive to produce public good. The current Bill offers some ways for us to harness FIs to this end, and I hope my proposals will not just help us gather more pieces of the puzzle, but ensure that they fit in the right places as well.”
“In fact, I note that under the proposed section 28L in the Bill, MAS is not only entitled to a copy of the risk information that was shared by an FI to another FI, but can also act on it. If that is the case, why is it proposed that the consequence for negligently providing false information to MAS be dealt with differently from negligently providing false information to another FI? I would be grateful for the hon Minister of State's clarification on this. Under the proposed provisions, it seems that anyone may falsely describe to another the piece he has without consequence if it is attributable to lack of diligence on his part. Next, I would like to suggest that the proposed offences against FIs under the information-sharing framework be considered for listing in the Sixth Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) under the Minister's powers provided for under section 427(1) of the CPC. Madam, the Sixth Schedule lists offences in respect of which deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) may be entered into between the Public Prosecutor and a subject. The entering into DPAs in lieu of prosecution provides the Public Prosecutor with an important tool to deal with corporate offending without affecting innocent stakeholders such as shareholders. Typically, DPAs provide for detailed remediation on the part of the corporate offender, so as to ensure that proper systems are in place to prevent re-offending. This may, in certain situations, serve public interest better. Currently, the Sixth Schedule consists of a good number of offences in the AML/CFT arena, particularly the offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 and section 16(4) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022.”
“First, it is proposed that under section 28J in the Bill that a prescribed FI or its officers who knowingly or recklessly discloses, or publishes any risk information pertaining to a customer of the bank that is false or misleading in a material particular. I support the need to create this offence. There are serious repercussions for the customer if the FI gets it wrong. The hon Minister of State acknowledged this in his speech. The customer will be denied access to their bank accounts and probably would be subject of STRs that may trigger investigations by enforcement authorities. I would like to know why it is not proposed that FIs which are negligent in making such disclosures to other FIs not guilty of offences. I would like to point out that under section 176(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act, it is an offence for a person to provide false information to the MAS without exercising reasonable care to ensure that the information is not false or misleading in any material particular. This is the same for other statutes that MAS enforces, such as the Banking Act 1970 (BA) or the Financial Advisers Act. It is consistently provided that a person who negligently provided false information to the MAS is guilty of an offence. These provisions were enacted with the current paradigm of information flow in mind, that is, as between the FI and MAS. The proposed information-sharing framework between FIs changes the paradigm. I am struggling to understand why in the new paradigm, we are allowing for a lower standard of probity on the part of the FIs when, in fact, the repercussion on the customer is substantially the same.”
“The middle ground option would be to employ the 80-20 rule and just focus on banks of a certain size and above. However, this will be a dog whistle for the criminals to use smaller banks. I would be grateful for the hon Minister of State's views on this matter. The next operational issue I wish to touch on is the proposed ability on the part of a prescribed FI to, on its own motion, disclose risk information to another prescribed FI in certain circumstances as provided for under section 28E in the Bill. I support this move. It makes the information-sharing platform much more effective. That is, what do you do if you suspect someone else has a piece? To depend on only the requesting FIs to initiate the information-sharing process assumes that the requestors will be able to identify "red flags". This may not be always the case. In all likelihood, there will continue to be blind spots in form of Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" or going back to the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Allowing FIs possessing the risk information to proactively share it with the relevant FIs, even without initiation by the latter, addresses this problem. I note that the operative word here is "may". FIs "may" proactively share information. The question I have is what structural incentives or disincentives can be provided to the FIs so that they can be motivated to be proactive. Would this be dealt with under the proposed MAS Notice? I now turn to the area of enforcement against FIs to ensure compliance with the information-sharing framework. I have two specific questions in this area.”
“In this regard, I note that it is proposed that MAS be given the power to issue notices, of a general or specific nature, to FIs for the effective administration of the information sharing framework. Is it contemplated that this issue I raised will be dealt with through enforcement action permitted under the MAS notices? There is, in addition, a connected issue of parity on the part of FIs. Currently, the six major commercial banks chosen to join COSMIC all have strong AML/CFT capabilities. They invest substantial amounts of money in compliance systems that will allow the banks to monitor real-time transactions and analyse them against a treasure trove of databases to flag suspicious activities. They also make significant investments into the training of compliance officers to act as competent gatekeepers for the respective banks. Going forward, should MAS decide to expand the list to include more FIs, what would be the considerations to ensure that FIs which have less compliance capabilities and capacities do not unfairly leverage off FIs which do? I see this as a potential double-edged sword. On one hand, I would imagine that, at least theoretically, the bigger the number of FIs which can join COSMIC, the better protection we get from ML/TF/PF activities. On the other hand, by prescribing entry requirements, there is a possibility that the smaller FIs may be less motivated to make investments to qualify. One possible option is to make it compulsory for all FIs licensed in Singapore to eventually have a minimum level of compliance competencies so that they all meet the entry requirements. This will eliminate the moral hazard I am concerned about, but I am not sure if this is practicable.”
“I will cover just two areas. First, operational issues; and second, enforcement issues. On operational issues, I seek clarification on the important timing issue between the requesting FI and the disclosing FI. This addresses the question, "Do you have a piece?" I note that under the proposed section 28D of the Bill, the disclosing FI has a discretion whether to disclose to the requesting FI the risk information that is being sought for. In the event the discloser declines to disclose the risk information, it must notify the requester of its decision and the reasons for the same. There is no specific timeline specified for the discloser to reply to the requester through COSMIC. This is understandable as the time needed may be case specific. On the other hand, there should be a general understanding between FIs that requests for information should be dealt with urgency, so that there is a chance to catch up with the suspected criminals. In the banking world, with transactions being completed in a matter of microseconds, speed of response is of utmost important. May I please ask what stipulations will be imposed on prescribed FIs in this regard? Can we ask, for example, for guidelines – what is a reasonable time to respond? I would also like to understand whether the framework will allow for redress against FIs, which are objectively assessed to be too conservative or even obstructive, in rejecting requests for risk information. Such attitudes will undermine the aim of the Bill. May I ask what can be done in these circumstances to deal with such eventualities? How do we assess when a specific FI is being unduly dismissive of a request which should have been taken more seriously?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, as I understand, the primary motivation of the Bill is to provide a framework to share customer information between FIs in Singapore, through a secure digital platform known as COSMIC, to better combat the scourge of financial crime. I support this aim. With the growing sophistication of criminals engaged in financial crime who take advantage of information asymmetry between FIs, enforcement agencies and regulators within a global ecosystem, there is a case to require enhanced cooperation between FIs, even if they may be business competitors. In return, the FIs are immunised against civil liability for sharing information amongst them. The basic idea is that, with the pooling of information between FIs, there is a better chance to know the nature of the beast that the FIs are dealing with. I do not think there is any quarrel with the basic premise of the Bill. Like the hon Member Mr Derrick Goh who spoke before me, this too brings to my mind the famous Indian folktale of the six blind men and the elephant. This story must have made an impact in our childhood. Each of them touched a different part of the animal and came with a completely different assessment of how the elephant looked like. They later learnt though, that when they put together all the information that they have separately gleaned, only then did they know the truth of the matter. The points I will be raising in my speech are focused on trying to better understand the mechanics of the proposed framework and how they can be reconciled against the stated aim of the Bill. Everyone wants to know the final shape of the beast, but what incentives are there for people who own each individual part to take the time and trouble to give up his piece and see where and how it fits?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, on a point of clarification. I note the hon Second Minister's response to my suggestion about not holding persons criminally liable in the event that they lodge a Police report of monies that they have received in their accounts. I would just like to clarify that what my proposal is, is actually in the context of persons who were negligent in having their accounts being used and subsequently realised when the monies came in, that their accounts were misused, and therefore they proceed to lodge a Police report. Certainly not advocating a carte blanche to deal with all scenarios. That is the first point. And in relation to my suggestion that the Ministry consider putting up due diligence measures that account holders should generally subscribe to, something akin to the Immigration Act, I wonder whether the hon Second Minister has the response to that?”
“There is one further area that I would like to respectfully suggest to the hon Second Minister with a view to further bolster the steps, to prevent unauthorised disclosure of Singpass credentials. As part of our efforts to be a digital nation, the Government offers Singpass Application Programming Interface (API) to both Government and private entities. As a result, Singaporeans now, through Singpass, can gain access to a plethora of services provided by both Government and private entities. With the convenience, unfortunately, comes the risk of some Singaporeans being scammed. We have heard and seen cases of people falling prey to phishing and spoofing scams by scammers allegedly representing the Government and private entities that led them to disclose their Singpass credentials to scammers. For this reason, I would like to suggest that it should be made a regulatory must for all entities using Singpass APIs for access into their services be given the responsibility to proactively conduct due diligence to identify phishing and spoofing attempts on unsuspecting people. By imposing a regulatory responsibility, I hope that alarm can be raised sooner rather than later and the number of victims falling prey to such scams can be reduced. There is no sure way to guard against the ill intentions of malicious men, just as there is no way to match the ingenuity of criminal minds, save by the ingenuity of all of us who stand against them. My first set of proposals requires the presence of minds from individuals to pay attention to the rules of engagement in a digital world. My second requires institutions to play this role too. Together, we can form a tighter net against those would wish us harm.”
“I have also come across cases of adult Singaporeans who have not being able to open bank accounts because of their criminal past, or because they are subject to investigations of certain offences. As a result, the banks have assessed them to be high risk cases and rejected their applications to open bank accounts. I suggest that more be done between the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and banks to ensure that even if a person has a criminal past or is a subject of investigation, he or she should be able to open an account to at least to have access to basic banking services. No bank regulated by MAS should be allowed to reject an application for basic banking services on the basis that he is high risk. This should be a universal right and, in fact, this is not a controversial point. I note that in 2020, Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in response to a Parliamentary Question filed by the hon Member Louis Chua, stated that MAS was working with banks on further ways to enhance financial inclusion whilst ensuring that risks were adequately managed. Should we be able to ensure that all Singaporean residents have universal access to banking services, this can help in the fight against scams too. Money mules will no longer be able to provide the excuse that the third party who took control of their account is unbanked. I now proceed to deal with the proposed amendments to the CMA. I support the hon Second Minister's proposal to make it an offence for an individual to disclose his Singpass credentials to another knowingly or having reasonable grounds to believe that the purpose of the disclosure is to facilitate the commission of an offence. Such access would enable criminals to open bank accounts, registering companies and sign up for new phone lines.”
“I would suggest that the hon Minister consider the approach taken under the Immigration Act in relation to persons who are found to have harboured immigration offenders as a result of their negligence. As some Members here may recall, in the 1980s, we had a big problem with illegal immigrants. Hence, the Government passed strict laws to deal with this problem by making it an offence for employers and landlords to harbour illegal immigrants. In 1993 and later in 1998, the Government set out the due diligence requirements in legislation, so that employers and landlords were put on notice on the checks they have to perform, failing which they will be deemed not to have exercised due diligence. In short, all these measures will make it harder for someone to say, "But I didn't know!". The response would be, "Well, you ought to have known." I also would like to take this opportunity, as an aside, to deal with a scenario that I believe may come up from time to time in Police investigations against suspected money mules for not exercising due diligence in allowing their accounts to be used by others. The suspects may explain that this is because the subject to whom he provided access to his account is unbanked, meaning that they had no access to a banking account, and had sought his assistance to receive or send monies. Whilst at first glance this explanation may be rejected as being unbelievable, there is anecdotal and statistical evidence to suggest otherwise. The Government statistics show that while more than 98% of Singapore residents here have bank accounts, about 2% do not. This works out to about more than 200,000 persons here who are unbanked.”
“This is especially unhelpful, given the sheer number of scams that we face on a daily basis – on an industrial scale, actually. Clearly, there is a pressing need to clamp down on accounts that may be accessible by scammers. Hence, I appreciate why a tough stance has to be taken. I wonder though, if the potential harsh effect of applying an objective standard on certain account holders, by reason of their personal backgrounds, can be mitigated by two measures. First, to have what I call a "whitewash" policy which allows for the account holders to not be held criminally liable if he were to lodge a Police report soon after they received monies which they believe to be derived from ill-gotten gains, even if they may be criminally liable in the first place for facilitating the transfer of these monies into their accounts owing to their negligence. By lodging the Police report, the ASC will be placed in a position to freeze the monies in the accounts and prevent the monies from falling into hands of the scammers. For the account holders who do not act with diligence, I will imagine that the penny would drop for them as soon as they are put into funds. So, these account holders should be incentivised and given credit for proactively reaching out to the authorities in such circumstances. Second, for the Home Team to set out clearly in legislation or other platforms what its expectations of the account holders are. In this regard, I note that the hon Second Minister mentioned that the rash or negligence concept is not new and is employed in the Penal Code as well as the Road Traffic Act.”
“Also, speed is of the essence as these officers, through their network of more than 80 partners, try to freeze and recover monies belonging to the victims before they leave our jurisdiction. These officers deserve our appreciation and full support as they discharge their duties to the best of their abilities. I now turn to the proposals set out in the Bill. I appreciate the policy underpinning of the decision to make account holders responsible for the transactions in their accounts, so that their accounts would not be used by scammers. I have no issue with the proposal to extend criminal liability to an account holder who engaged in rash money laundering activities. As I see it, the account holder would have been put on notice but decided to assume the risk nonetheless, usually for profit, as explained by the hon Second Minister in her speech. Hence, he should be made criminally liable for helping the scammers. I am, however, concerned about the proposal for an account holder to be criminally liable if he was negligent and that led to his account being used for money laundering activities. The reality is that account holders have different levels of knowledge and experiences. Their susceptibility to overtures and influences of a scammer may also vary. This is an observation made by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim in her speech yesterday and by the hon Member Mr Louis Ng in his speech today. In these circumstances, to apply an objective standard may operate unfairly against some of the account holders who do not have sufficient knowledge and experience and, therefore, are less discerning than others. On the other hand, I do appreciate though that this may give a free pass to too many people who can feign ignorance after the fact.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of both Bills. These Bills are really about equipping our Home Team with the necessary legal tools to combat the scourge of scams. The hon Second Minister for Home Affairs apprised us of the staggering numbers involved here – tens of thousands of victims, tens of thousands of bank accounts used to launder money from local victims, and billions of dollars lost. The pain and suffering caused to the victims of the scams is very real. I have spoken to several residents in the Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency who have fallen victim to scams and lost their life savings to criminals who preyed on their vulnerabilities. It is heartbreaking for them to realise that, given the international nature of these crimes, there is little prospect of them recovering their monies stolen from them once the monies get transferred overseas, despite the best efforts of our enforcement officers. The introduction of these Bills represents a decisive step in Home Team's strategy to deal with this scourge. Madam, before I go further, I wish to pay tribute to our Home Team officers who have been waging an all-out battle against the perpetrators of the scams, especially the officers charged with the responsibility of investigating these cases. Our officers from the Anti-Scam Command (ASC), which includes the Scam Strike Teams in all land divisions, have been working feverishly on thousands of cases since the Command was set up last year. Their job is complex. Frequently, cross-border cooperation is needed to bring perpetrators to book and recover funds transmitted overseas. This can, admittedly, be a frustrating exercise.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the hon Member Mr Desmond Choo, who is away on official business, may I ask the hon Minister of State how would the SSCCC benefit small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and Singaporeans, in relation to the areas for which MOUs have been signed, particularly the finance, digital and green economies?”
“This is a point that hon Minister of State Sun Xueling made at the outset of her speech when she said that MSF's aim is to nurture families. But we do not always succeed. It is important that the legislative process works to protect the interests of all parties when marriages dissolve. The ties that bind us, husband to wife, are ties that can be severed by divorce proceedings. But the tie that binds a citizen to his fellow men, and to his country, remains. Our laws must provide for this less intimate, but paradoxically, in this context, more enduring connection, in the pursuit of family justice.”
“It is, therefore, important to ensure that the MEO has sufficient powers to do all these so as to be able to lift the veil of secrecy between the respondent and his proxy, depending on the case. Currently, I note that an MEO may avail himself of information from banks and prescribed third parties which I understand refers to specific Government agencies. These bodies may provide information as permitted under regulations which will be enacted sometime in the future. May I ask whether the scope of information that is contemplated to be provided to the MEO is wide enough to deal with inquiries on persons believed to be proxies of the respondents? I also note that, apart from the “bank” and a “prescribed third party”, the MEO may request the Court for an order that a “third party” provide him with relevant information. May I ask what is the ambit of this “third party”? Does it refer to any other Government agency that is not prescribed? Or does it only refer to any private person, and this may include legal entities, who may have relevant information? May I also confirm that a “third party” may include a person who is believed to be a proxy or has information that may be relevant for investigation into any proxy relationship? In summary, my first point on the leadership of judges in this process, as well as a whole-of-Government lens in information sharing, speaks to an important point on efficient implementation of justice. My second requires us to clarify a small but not unimportant matter. This clarity will help answer questions about the independence of such officers and to what extent their work requires an arms’ length from the Executive arm. Sir, we strive to preserve families.”
“The Minister may make regulations prescribing fees payable to an MEO. At the same time, it is expressly proposed that the MEO ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case, assist the Court and issue a report that the Court can take cognisance of. An MRO, on the other hand, is an officer of the Court. Hence, there is less of an issue for an officer of the Court assisting the Court on the same matters. How would public interest be better served by siting this responsibility with the Executive rather than the Judiciary? I wish to clarify that I support the MEO proposal. I am merely pointing out that, as there is an important shift of responsibility from the Judiciary to the Executive that is being proposed, it is incumbent for the Executive arm of the Government to explain the reason for assuming this responsibility clearly. I now turn to the ambit of the power to be reposed on MEO with respect to information gathering. The hon Minister mentioned in his speech about the problem posed by respondents dissipating their assets to third parties and that would frustrate the applicant's endeavour to get paid under maintenance orders. This is one big area of concern and I am glad to note that there is a proposal to reverse the evidential burden so as to alleviate the problems on the part of the applying spouses. Another area where there could be a significant challenge is where the respondent has assets and properties which are held in the names of proxies. To make headway on such matters, there will be a need to conduct investigations, too. These investigations will include the relationship between the respondent and an identified proxy; the personal and financial background of the proxy; and any financial transactions between the respondent and the proxy.”
“This will, in turn, put similarly minded persons, who may think that they could get away with not complying with maintenance Court orders, on notice. Sir, I support this proposal. The question I have is, why is it proposed that the MEO be an officer appointed by the Executive Branch of the Government instead of the Judiciary? Currently, under Rule 114B of the Family Justice Rules 2014, the Court has the power to appoint a public officer as a Maintenance Record Officer, the MRO, who is considered as an officer of the Family Justice Court. The MRO has quasi-judicial powers similar to what is being proposed for the MEO. This includes the power to interview parties to the proceedings; and obtain documents and information on the financial circumstances of a party to proceedings from the party directly or from any other person, with the consent of the party. In addition, the MRO may be required to prepare for the Court a written report setting out his opinion on the financial circumstances of the party and whether he is able to pay maintenance. This report may be relied on by the Court as evidence of the matters stated in the report. This also mirrors what the MEO is supposed to do under the proposed maintenance regime. Given that the MEO is supposed to take over the tasks of the MRO, may I ask why it is proposed that the MEO be an officer of the Executive arm of the Government instead of the Judiciary? As we all know, our Constitution is based on the separation of powers doctrine. There are three pillars of Government; the judiciary is an independent pillar of the Government. Here, it is proposed that the MEO act, “subject to the general or special directions of the Minister insofar as the directions are not inconsistent” with the clauses in the Bill under consideration.”
“This is a welcome reform. The hon Minister in his speech spoke about real life cases involving husbands who could pay but just obstinately refused to pay, forcing the single mothers to bear heavy responsibilities of bringing up their children. As a result, they simply did not have the bandwidth to pursue their ex-husbands to pay maintenance. And these defaulting spouses may even get away with their offending behaviour. And such instances are clearly wrong. The hon Speaker of Parliament, in his capacity as the Minister for Social and Family Development in 2017, in a Family Justice Forum, said as follows: "…[M]aintenance issues continue to be an area of concern for some parties, even after the divorce has been finalised. For the parent who requires financial contributions from the other towards the child's upkeep, having to return to Court to enforce a maintenance order can be tedious and frustrating. This is especially so when the other parent has the means to pay but refuses to do so." The hon Minister, in his speech, pointed out that in the 2022 White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, maintenance enforcement reform was advocated as a priority area. This is precisely the problem that the introduction of the Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs), who will have the powers to obtain more accurate information about the respondents' financial circumstances, is intended to address and I support this move. MEOs will be able to get directly information from stipulated entities, such as banks, CDP, CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, LTA and SLA. With this, the MEO will be able to ascertain whether the respondent does not have the capacity to pay or he has the capacity but refuses to pay. Through this, we can have quicker enforcement action against the recalcitrant respondents.”
“Even without the involvement of young children, I have seen situations where, post-divorce, one party to the proceedings would apply to HDB for urgent public housing on the basis that the Court had ordered the sale of the matrimonial property, leaving that person without a roof over his or her head. It seems to me that part of the problem lies with the fact that there exists an information asymmetry between the parties to the divorce proceedings, HDB and the Court. HDB would be in the dark about what the parties represented to the Court about housing arrangements post-divorce. The Court may not know whether the parties' proposed housing arrangement is feasible as HDB's criteria are not cast in stone and it does exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. By providing the Court with the power to act on its own motion on substantive matters, it will be in a better position to make a just and equitable decision on the division of matrimonial property that affects the housing arrangements of the parties and their children post-divorce. We will, therefore, be better able to minimise the number of hardship cases involving parties and their children who run the risk of not having any place to stay or stay in less than conducive environments after they have sold their HDB flats pursuant to a Court order. I would like to ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary how, with the proposed enhancements to Court proceedings and procedure in the FJC, will the problem that I have identified be addressed? Also, I wonder if a protocol among the Court, parties and HDB can be established to resolve the information asymmetry that I have highlighted here. The second aspect of the Bill that I intend to speak on deals with proposals aimed at facilitating better maintenance outcomes.”
“Such situations, unfortunately, occur from time to time despite the common wisdom that they should be prioritising the needs of their children. I made this point during the Ministry of National Development (MND) Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this year when I spoke on the topic of inclusive public housing. The hon Minister highlighted in his speech that family disputes are unique because, amongst others, they involve vulnerable children. The interests of vulnerable children may not necessarily be aligned with those of their parents. During the debate, I mentioned that I have come across cases where the husband and wife, for reasons of expediency, decided on arrangements, such as selling their HDB flat early, without having the prospect of securing proper housing arrangements or even considering schooling arrangements for the young children of the marriage. In these cases, as there was agreement between the parties, the Court proceeded to endorse the parties' agreement on the assumption that the parents have catered for the needs of their young children. It is only after disposing the matrimonial property that the issue of the children's interest not being sufficiently safeguarded came to the fore. In such cases, the parent who has custody of the children may then make an appeal to HDB for urgent accommodation, presenting HDB with a fait accompli. As we all know, such requests are not easily acceded to. In the end, the children suffer from the decisions of their parents.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the aims of the Bill. In my speech, I will touch on just two aspects of the Bill and I will deal with them in turn. The first aspect is the desire for Family Court proceedings to be simpler and to produce fair outcomes without undue delay. One way of doing this is by providing Judges a greater ambit to decide on key matters that protect public interest, as well as the interests of vulnerable parties, such as children. In this regard, I note that it is proposed in clause 4 of the Bill that the Court be given powers to make an order on its own motion, without application by the parties, so long as every person likely to be affected by the Court's order is given an opportunity to be heard beforehand; and impose restrictions during cross-examination, as it sees fit. The hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Rahayu Mahzam took pains to outline the workings of this provision in her speech. As she mentioned, this proposal emanated from a recommendation of the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System, or the RERF Committee, in 2019. In the report, the RERF Committee explained that a judge-led approach will have, amongst others, the salutary effect of reducing acrimony between parties and avoiding protracted proceedings. I agree with the rationale outlined by the REFF Committee. Apart from strengthening the Therapeutic Justice element in the family proceedings, reposing such a power with the Court, in my respectful view, may also serve to guard against situations where the husband and wife together agree to post-divorce arrangements that may not be suitable for the children of the marriage, particularly young children who are of school-going age.”
“I spent some time highlighting the broad spectrum of plans affecting everything, from defence to the economy to the environment, as well as the fact that a long-term view has to be taken to implement these plans. I, therefore, congratulate the Government for presenting these plans that have secured this broad agreement in this House. This, however, is merely the start. To an extent, this may be the easier part of the process. Collectively, we need to secure the all-important buy-in of fellow Singaporeans to make the plans work for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. Whilst this is not an easy task, there is every reason to be confident, in my personal view. This is where what the President stated in her address about moving forward with confidence becomes relevant. She said: "We are now in a much stronger position – better poised to overcome our vulnerabilities and armed with crucial resources to push forward with confidence, however stormy the weather. Our collective experiences have strengthened the mutual trust between Singaporeans and their confidence in our system of Government. This virtuous circle relies on us partnering one another and working together to make the impossible, possible." I therefore call on all Members of this House, on both sides of the aisle, backbenchers and frontbenchers, to double down and work together to build happiness, prosperity and progress for our people. [Applause.] [(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)] [(proc text) "That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)] [(proc text) 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.'.”
“In fact, if anything, it would be surprising if all the ideas have been accepted without exception. The Government has unequivocally stated on many occasions that it is agnostic as to who and where good ideas come from. As the hon Leader of the Opposition stated in his speech just now, over the years, the Government did implement several policies that have been brought up by the WP. But of course, the Government, being accountable to this House, has a duty to set its position clearly on suggestions made in this House and articulate its reasons should it not take up the suggestions. This is Parliamentary democracy at work. This is what our people expect. In the same vein, for the purposes of establishing common ground which the President has identified in her address to be an important aspect of our work in this House, it would be good for hon Members from the Opposition parties to also entrench the policy of acknowledging, where appropriate, where they feel to be good ideas emanating from the Government. This approach entrenches the shared goal of advancing the larger public interest even as we acknowledge that the political process naturally involves a level of contestation. A great example of this happened just a few hours ago, when hon Member Mr Dennis Tan congratulated MOT and MPA for launching an electronic harbour launch recently, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Sir, I now turn my third and final point. From the debate, it is noteworthy that there is broad agreement to the Government's plans, as articulated by the President, to secure our nation's future. In my opening speech, I drew attention to the ambitious nature of these plans. They involve high levels of creativity.”
“To evolve our charity policies so as to support emerging forms of giving by potential grant-makers – a suggestion by the hon Ms Foo Mee Har. Tapping on our seniors to get them to volunteer and share their skills and experience with others – an idea raised by the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng. Legislating the right to work from home – an idea of the hon Member Mr Louis Ng. Providing caregiving leave to take care of elderly parents – an idea of the hon Member Ms Poh Li San; and Encouraging our non-SMEs to embrace inclusive hiring and employ more PwDs – an idea floated and passionately argued by the hon Member Miss Rachel Ong Several hon Members from across the aisle lamented that their suggestions have not been taken up by the Government. I appreciate that they feel strongly about their ideas and are convinced that it is for the larger good of our country. I wish to point out that there are also numerous cases of suggestions made passionately by PAP backbenchers which also have not been taken up by the Government. So, they are in good company! I think we can all appreciate that, in assessing the viability of implementing ideas from hon Members, the Executive arm of our Government bears the heavy responsibility of governing. They have to strike a balance between a wide range of factors including policy intent, competing viewpoints and resourcing priorities. In addition, for some of the ideas to be implemented, there is a need for progress to be made over time – a point that was eloquently put across by the hon Member Ms Denise Phua who had advocated the integrated 10-year education programme from Primary 1 to Secondary 4, almost 10 years ago. Hence, I would not read too much into the Government's decision not to adopt all the suggestions made by hon Members.”
“Notwithstanding the diversity of the topics covered in this debate, I noted unanimity amongst hon Members on the importance of retaining our core values that have been ingrained in our nation by our founding generation of leaders and stood us in good stead for several generations. This is the point that Mr Sitoh Yih Pin emphatically made. He said that our values are and must continue to be hard coded in our psyche as a people. I agree. This is our secret sauce. This is what will allow us, as a nation and society, to continue to forge forward to secure a fair share of opportunities for our people to lead fulfilling and dignified lives. Moving on to my second point, I wish to highlight that hon Members had provided a surfeit of suggestions in this debate. These suggestions deserve examination with a view to see if the future plans of this Government that have already been laid out, can be further strengthened by their incorporation. They include: Linking unemployment support for citizens with their agreement to undertake skills upgrading and active job searching – a suggestion raised jointly by the hon Member Mr Desmond Choo. Attainment of transformative competencies by our children in school – a suggestion of the hon Member Mr Darryl David. Financial literacy programmes for our children – a suggestion raised by the hon Member Mr Gerald Giam. Protection of whistle-blowers who report on discrimination and unfair employment practices – a suggestion by the hon Member Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. Equipping community volunteers with mental health first aid skills – a suggestion by the hon Member Ms Ng Ling Ling. Redesigning of the Progressive Wage Models to provide for more wage rungs to enable workers to climb more easily – a suggestion by Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.”
“Ensuring that our families remain the building blocks of our society, promoting marriages and parenthood, and at the same time, supporting these families as they become smaller and caregiving responsibilities increase – something that the hon Members including Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh, spoke on. Providing our rapidly ageing society with a better support structure, tackling ageism and at the same time, empowering them to contribute to our community – points raised by the hon Members Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia. Protecting our aged and vulnerable citizens from scams as we continue to digitalise our economy – a topic raised by amongst others, the hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Melvin Yong. Providing more support to people with mental health issues – an important topic that was covered by the hon Members Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Nadia Samdin. Opening up a whole range of pathways to ensure that our meritocratic society is more inclusive – a good number of hon MPs spoke about this, including Mr Xie Yao Quan. Concerns about the environmental issues that our country faces were expressed by several Members, including Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Dennis Tan. Concerns about the impact of unbridled asset acquisition in Singapore by the increasing numbers of wealthy individuals from overseas who set up family offices – a point made by the hon Leader of Opposition. And finally, upholding public confidence in this House and ensuring good politics, strong leadership and good governance at all levels – areas that the hon Members Mr Derrick Goh, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Faisal Manap touched on.”
“All these points persuasively put across by our hon Members from the Labour Movement, such as Minister of State Desmond Tan, Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman and Mr Patrick Tay. Concerns about our social compact, the need to strengthen help for the have-nots in our society – a point that several hon Members, including Mr Seah Kian Peng, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Leong Mun Wai, made. Ensuring better educational outcomes and prospects for children and youths from less privileged backgrounds – this was raised by, amongst others, the hon Members Mr Vikram Nair, Dr Wan Rizal, Dr Shahira Abdullah and Mr Henry Kwek. Keeping a keen eye on and addressing the impact of cost of living and inflation on our people – a topic that, again, a number of hon Members spoke on, including Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Louis Chua. Highlighting the potential threat of AI on our social trust and togetherness, and at the same time, the need to capture opportunities from this technological advancement – points that were eloquently put across by the hon Members Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Mariam Jaafar. Ensuring that trust is a two-way relationship between our people and our Government, the need to promote active citizenry and retention of our core values as a society – points raised by the hon Members Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Shawn Huang. Moving away from credentialism and valuing skills and competencies instead – something that several hon Members spoke on, including Ms Janet Ang. Looking out for the needs of the differently abled – a topic that the hon Members Mr Don Wee and Miss Rachel Ong touched on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just reached the end of the five-day debate on the Motion of thanks to the President. From my rough count, we heard 67 speeches in this debate. I am happy to note that all hon Members of this House who spoke are united in their support for the Motion. Just a short while ago, before the break, I left this Chamber to visit the loo. There, I bumped into an hon Member, who said to me, that he was really looking forward to seeing me deliver my wrap-up speech. Pleased with his exuberance, I asked whether he was interested to get a sneak preview of what I intended to cover later. He, however, demured. He clarified that what he meant was that once I stand up to speak, it will be a cue for his family, who is seeing these proceedings "live", that the debate would shortly end. [Laughter.] So, just like the hon Minister Edwin Tong who spoke before me, I get the drift. Hon Members will be happy to note that I will only make three short points in my speech. First, I wish to thank the hon Members who spoke for sharing their valuable insights about the Government's plans outlined by the President. This debate is significant because of the sheer breadth and depth of topics highlighted by hon Members for the Government's consideration. I am not able to exhaustively set out all the topics, but I will mention a few of them. The topics covered included: ensuring that economic growth benefits Singaporeans from all backgrounds, strengthening the tripartite trust, developing our skilled tradesmen, the need to reskill middle-aged workers for them to remain employable and decisively tackle workplace discriminations.”
“I thank Mr Perera again for his answers. And maybe, Your Honour, if I could clarify, my interest in relation to raising the position of the WP from the 1990s is, with respect, not unfair because what we need is clarity on where the WP – and, for that reason, any party – stands on important issues. So, if it, indeed, had evolved, then it will be incumbent on any party to then make that position very clear, so that the public understands where the parties are on these important issues.”
“I thank the hon Member Mr Perera for clarifying that the acceptance of the stance of GST being at 7% is to be implied from the fact that in 2018, when it was proposed by the Government to increase the GST from 7% to 9%, the WP did not ask for a reduction of the percentage. Just on a point of elucidation, GST was not being increased for the first time in 2018. It was actually being increased progressively from 3% to 4% to 5%. And, in around 2007, it was increased from 5% to 7%. So, I take it that as far as my learned friend, or rather, the hon Member Mr Perera is concerned, this implicit decision to accept GST was made in 2018 when the Government conveyed its decision to propose an increase of GST from 7% to 9%. And if that is the case, then I think we have a happy situation because the gulf or the gap between the WP and the PAP is now narrowed from 9% to now 2%.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek a clarification of a response given by the hon Member Mr Leon Perera to Minister Ong Ye Kung yesterday. As may be recalled, the hon Member Mr Perera mentioned, in relation to the Goods and Services Tax (GST), that the Workers' Party (WP) accepted the GST at 7% and conveyed this in 2018. My interest is that I actually spoke about the WP's position from 1993 when the GST Bill was being introduced all the way to date, and I checked the Hansard. So, I would like to seek clarification from the hon Member as to when and where this position of the WP was articulated.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned.”