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 9 of 25.
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned.”
“We are a people new to pandemics and the world has not seen the scale and intensity of COVID-19. But Singapore overcame. History is a good teacher but, like PSLE mathematics, we do not need to have worked out the same sum before to get the right answer in a new one. We are a different people today and require a new style and substance in our policies. Two things which guided our leaders after the war must not change. First, to achieve prosperity so as to ensure happiness and peace for our people; and second, to ensure that Singapore continues to survive as an independent nation. The President’s speech, like those of almost all Presidents before her, speaks of the need to ensure that Singapore “endures for many years to come”. No large country suffers from this same paranoia. But this is the nature of small states – to be short-lived. We are either annexed or merged and, in fact, we ourselves thought this at the start. There is nothing external to ourselves, no partners or allies that will ensure the survival of this improbable nation. We must, therefore, trust one another, trust our leaders and trust our shared identity so as to build a brighter future together. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“If we are to consider Singapore as a base to scale and not a pinnacle on which we rest, we must recognise that the nature of the electorate is changing. It has been changing since World War Two ended – a generation that has never known war, communalism, death by gunshot or violence, days of hunger, or nights of terror. Today, a new generation is emerging, standing taller and brighter than the ones before. Their education is deeper, their social support tighter and with more social spending per person than ever before in our history. In health, education, housing and transport, we are doing much more to provide all Singaporeans with better services and to support the more vulnerable groups. As a result, we have, today, a generation that has never experienced hardship to the same degree and scale of the past. From the start of their working life, they understand that they can ask for work-life balance and mental wellness days, not as entitlements but as a fact of Singaporean life. These are the natural fruits of 60 years of careful tending. Our people today would naturally have different responses to Government policies than those of the past. Human response is not an artifice. This word “lived experience” is used quite a lot today. Some may feel uncomfortable at how it elevates subjective experience to a policy truth on which we often build an edifice of rights and allocations. The fact remains that people’s psyche will change and, as they do, their government must change and to a degree and at a speed unprecedented. We cannot be an analogue government in a digital world, if we are to keep faith with our fellow Singaporeans. All this is not to say that Singaporeans are less tough today than we were in the past or that we rise any slower to a challenge.”
“I, therefore, feel that the President’s reminder that we should hold dear to our core values as Singaporeans is a timely one. This is the enduring legacy of our founding generation of leaders led by our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. At the same time – and this my second point – I feel that it is important for the Forward Singapore Exercise to adequately capture the idealism of our youths so that they will be able to identify with and support our vision for the future. After all, they have the biggest stake in our plans for the future. A few weeks ago, during a house visit, I met my resident, Mr Sherman Chua, aged 21. He is working with a Silicon Valley company in the artificial intelligence (AI) space. As we all know, this space is simply “exploding” at the moment with the advent of ChatGPT and so on. He told me that as a result of his exposure to this space, he is convinced that life as we know it will change a lot through imminent and rapid adoption of AI. He expressed to me his concern that Singapore is not investing enough resources to get ahead in this area. In his view, if nothing is done in this space within the next five years, Singapore may be passed over and runs the risk of becoming a laggard. I invited him to drop me an email containing his views and I will link him up with the relevant pillar leads in the Forward Singapore Exercise. I am sure there are other young people like Sherman in our communities. It will serve the 4G Team well to engage such people so that their views on the shared vision for the future are taken onboard. I look forward to receiving the 4G Team’s report on the Forward Singapore Exercise that is expected to be issued in the second half of this year. Sir, let me conclude.”
“When I rose to speak on the Bill, I highlighted that whilst there were important differences between the views of the hon Members from both sides of the aisle, they were few, compared to the substantive areas of agreement between them. I do not remember a single journalist covering this point in his or her article. I am not surprised. In my speech on building consensus in Parliament, I said that, and I quote “agreement, collegiality, friendliness, all these make for poor headlines”. Contestation sells, not consensus. As a result, the public perceived that there was a wide chasm between the hon Members of the governing and opposition parties on Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) than what was, in fact, the case. For these reasons, I advocate an introspection within each of us in this House to build the common ground that the President referred to in her speech. Parliamentary proceedings should not be turned into arenas for “entertainment” that we regularly see in other countries. This will erode our people’s trust and confidence in their elected representatives. That will be very bad for Singapore. Finally, and importantly, I turn to the Forward Singapore Exercise. As we all know, the Forward Singapore Exercise conducted by our 4G leadership involves engaging thousands of Singaporeans from all walks of life. These engagements are aimed at identifying the values, priorities and policies needed to strengthen our social compact and to build a better and brighter Singapore. I wish to make two points on the Forward Singapore Exercise. First, as we look forward, we should not forget the values that allowed us to make progress as a nation.”
“Cabinet government is not a debating society or an academic seminar. These are intellectual exercises. Views are aired and, if done with style and elegance, the participants go home happy. In Government, you have to live with the consequences of your decision. If you make a mistake, the results are painful. In political life, there is no alibi for failure.” I feel that we, in Parliament, should bear this in mind. When we deal with the real issues in this House, we know that they often matter to millions of lives. When we say that we are not “ideological” about something, it means that we are not wedded to whether the idea is from the left or the right, from the PAP or the Opposition, we are not wedded to repeating yesterday’s solutions tomorrow. We should be disinterested in merely sounding good. On their own, they do not serve the interests of Singaporeans. It is against this background that I argue the need for constructive politics in Parliamentary proceedings. Here, it may be useful to recount the debate that we had in this House on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill. Before the Second Reading of the Bill in this Parliament, there were concerns within certain quarters about the broad language of the Bill and perceived lack of judicial oversight. My hon friends across the aisle proposed amendments to the Bill to address, among others, these points. Hence, even before the hon Minister for Home Affairs delivered his Second Reading speech, lines were already drawn. This led to the hon Minister making a plea in this House to hon Members not to use Parliament as a forum to read out prepared speeches based on lines that were already drawn before he rendered his speech.”
“She advised that our interactions as politicians be anchored on mutual respect and the shared goal of advancing the larger public interest. We should work through our differences, enlarge our common ground and draw strength from our diverse perspectives. I fully agree. We, politicians, are at our best when we present our arguments in a measured way, recognise the inherent trade-offs in each of the policy suggestions that we make and present cogent arguments as to why we feel the balance should be struck one way or another. What the President stated brought to my mind the speech that I made during the opening of the 14th Parliament when I advocated several proposals for Parliamentary reform of our evolving democracy. I said then that building consensus in this House is an important outcome of our work here. I described consensus as a process of contestation, persuasion and resolution. Equally important is that such engagement will enable Singaporeans outside this House to have a better opportunity to understand the points of agreement, points of disagreement raised by their elected representatives and, through that, they will be able to better appreciate how these points impact on the ordinary lives of Singaporeans. This is a form of accountability, too. Singapore has always preferred an undramatic approach to problem solving. This is our political heritage from the first generation of our political pioneers. Some of you may have recognised that I quoted a line from Dr Goh Keng Swee at the start of my speech – that we must consider our starting today merely as a base to build tomorrow. Dr Goh was one of our deepest policy thinkers. He said, and I quote, “Deciding on policy and determining a line of action is different from engaging in a debate.”
“I am not a golfer, but I have certainly read about the amazing story of Mr Mardan Mahmat, who was Singapore’s number one golfer for more than 10 years. His is a rags-to-riches story. He dropped out of primary school at the age of 12. A year later, he became a caddie at Jurong Country Club. As a teenager, Mardan frequently snuck into the club’s golf course when no one was looking and, by himself, learned how to play the game. He obviously had loads of talent because he managed to hone it by himself. Long story short, he became Singapore’s number one golfer. Mardan’s story is exceptional. The reality now is that children from low- or middle-income backgrounds will find it difficult to gain access to more expensive sports, such as golf. I do think though that something can be done through stakeholders with the appropriate resources to organise efforts to reach out to interested children, give them the sporting experience, suss out from among them the next Mardan Mahmat whom they can help to nurture to be a Singapore golf champion. I am aware that many of these stakeholders already do wonderful charity work. I do hope though that they can consider this as a worthwhile extension of their efforts. The idea here is to provide children with the requisite talent and drive, regardless of their background, with opportunities to pursue their sporting dreams and become national athletes. I now turn to the work of political leaders in this House. The President stated in her speech that the trust between the political leadership and the people is a key strength that we must continue to nurture. The President gave important guidance in this regard.”
“In this way, our children will be able to study in a more conducive environment after school. In Bukit Batok, we have one example in the form of Tava by Talent Beacon, which is a non-profit organisation that sets up a study centre specially for children living in our rental flats, with the support of MND and HDB. Tava even provides study support and mentoring for these children. At the same time, the President emphasised the need for a stronger network of stakeholders to help provide opportunities for all, participate in nation building and build unity. This is not just the Government’s responsibility. I agree and I believe that all hon Members feel the same way too. The question is how can we achieve this? How do we get more committed stakeholders? During the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)'s COS debate this year, I highlighted that over the past five years between FY2016 and FY2020, the amount of tax-deductible donations per year remained more or less stable at $1 billion. I said then that we need to do something more fundamental to move this needle. I suggested that successful organisations and individuals must feel more invested in the lives of the less fortunate. They must know that we are bound together in one common destiny. We sink or swim together. This is clearly not an easy ask but we must quite clearly put in as much effort as possible to realise this objective. One area where stakeholders can help is to level the playing field when it comes to giving our children sporting experiences which are perceived to be within the exclusive domain of the well-to-do. Let me make my point through an example.”
“In particular, the President stated that the Government will look into ensuring that advantages and privileges that may come with meritocracy does not become entrenched such that it weakens our society. This point about the need to re-examine meritocracy was probably the most quoted point by my residents about the President’s speech whom I engaged with before drafting this speech. All of them expressed wholehearted agreement with the President. They agreed with the Government’s call to devote more resources to our children who start out with less. The support, however, is not just a question of fact, but a matter of degree too in order that we can make a tangible difference for these children. The Government has already made substantial investments in our children from humble backgrounds, particularly at rental flats through programmes like the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) and the Community Link (ComLink). One other area of potential support that the Government should consider is to address the housing environment of children living in overcrowded flats. This is a point that I have raised several times; the last being at the Ministry of National Development (MND)'s Committee of Supply (COS) 2023 debate during my speech on strengthening inclusivity in housing. In my speech, I said “each child is precious, and we must do our utmost to ensure that they grow up in more conducive housing environment”. To be fair, based on statistics provided by HDB, there are not many such cases, but I have come across a few. One possible way that can be considered is to provide for Social Service Agencies to run study centres for these children near rental flats that are open after school.”
“Second, the President highlighted that this unity as a nation will be important as we aim to secure economic opportunities amid a global economic slowdown to strengthen our position as a trusted and reliable business hub adding value to the world. On this, it may be useful to emphasise one important takeaway from this year’s Budget debate. The raison d’etre behind our economic objectives was never economic growth for its own sake. Rather, growth is a means to achieve our broader objectives of advancing the well-being of every Singaporean. We are already facing strong economic headwinds. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) reported last Friday that our economy grew by only 0.1 % in the first quarter of 2023. This affects our prospects for growth this year with inflation still running high. Economists are predicting a technical recession. The challenge facing us is clear. It seems to me what the President advocated in her speech about making sure Singapore is united in the context of a global economic slowdown has become all the more important now. Third, the President emphasised the need to strengthen our social compact through programmes aimed at uplifting the disadvantaged and vulnerable and to keep us as one united people. The President identified this effort as a priority of the 4G team which is engaging Singaporeans through the Forward Singapore exercise to renew and update our social compact. I will talk more on the Forward Singapore exercise later in my speech. The President also laid down the Government’s four key priorities to strengthen our social compact: (a) expanding opportunities for all, (b) strengthening social safety nets, (c) building a smart and liveable city and (d) deepening Singaporean’s sense of shared identity.”
“It sought documents supporting my resident’s claim that his income dropped significantly in 2022 before assessing whether it is prepared to provide him with the bonus on a discretionary basis. Again, this is an enlightened approach and there is much to commend the Public Service for exercising flexibility to ensure that the policy intent is met. Sir, I do not mean to advocate that all appeals are automatically granted, regardless of merit. Far from it. What I am drawing attention to is the process. Our citizens must feel that they were listened to, their views considered seriously and they received proper explanations in a respectful manner on the outcomes even if they may disagree with them. This approach will, in my view, deepen this strategic resource of trust between our people and the Government as an institution. Trust is the red thread running through the three points that the President made in her speech which made an impression on me. First, the President highlighted the need for us, as a little red dot, to close ranks and stay united against global forces which will continue to try even harder to influence our domestic public opinion, so as to uphold Singapore’s vital interests. Hon Members may recall the debate in this House on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill that was passed in 2021 to deal with hostile information campaigns by foreign powers. What I thought significant then was the united view expressed by hon Members on both sides of the aisle that Singapore politics is for Singaporeans. As responsible politicians, we must continue to close ranks and hold the line on core issues of national importance.”
“Her baby, Qi Yue, was born at 5.00 pm on 13 February 2023. This was seven hours too early as the enhanced Baby Bonus cash gift, which would have been disbursed seven to 10 days after registration of the baby’s birth, was meant for babies born on or after 14 February 2023. Mdm Zhu mentioned that her baby was born earlier than expected. This turns out to be a significant ground of appeal. In fact, the Baby Bonus Cash Gift policy was designed to allow babies due to be born on or after 14 February 2023 but were delivered earlier to get enhanced cash gifts too. By being flexible and not mechanically applying the timeline, we managed to achieve a better balance between the policy intent and the legitimate expectation of the ordinary citizen. My reward was that I got a photo of Baby Qi Yue who happened to lift her head for the first time on the day that the Government allowed Mdm Zhu’s appeal! So, maybe she approved too. I now turn to my next example. In Budget 2023, an announcement was made on the GST Voucher - Cash (Seniors’ Bonus). The policy intent was to help lower-income senior Singapore Citizens aged 55 and above cope with the cost of living. To gauge the financial circumstances of the senior, the Government uses the income earned in 2021 as a proxy. It has to be less than $34,000. I had a situation where my resident earned more than $34,000 in 2021 but had a significant drop in income in 2022 owing to personal circumstances. Technically, my resident did not qualify. However, having regard to the policy intent of the bonus, the Ministry of Finance (MOF), in its reply to the petition issued by me on behalf of my resident, was prepared to be flexible.”
“The Public Service plays a vital role in the maintenance of trust between our people and the Government. It will continue to play an important role in future. Sir, we are indeed fortunate to have very committed and hardworking public service officers dedicated to their respective organisational missions, the rule of law, securing Singapore’s national interests and improving the lives of Singaporeans. In my respectful view, the strong trust relationship that we enjoy today is attributable in a significant part to the blood, sweat and tears of our officers in discharging their solemn duties. To underscore this point, Sir, please allow me to share that, not infrequently, I receive detailed email replies from public officers, especially from the Housing and Development Board (HDB), to my queries on behalf of my constituents in the wee hours of morning! I cannot help feeling bad for them as they obviously sacrificed their personal time with their families to deal with official work. These officers have a strong sense of duty. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. What I feel distinguishes our Public Service from others is that in both design and implementation, our officers have foremost in their minds the ordinary Singapore Citizen. In their roles, they serve to strike a balance between achieving policy objectives, exemplifying values such as compassion and fairness, accountability for the use of national resources and the desire to do justice in each and every case. Let me provide two examples by reference to my Meet-the-People Session (MPS) cases just on issues arising from Budget 2023 in the past few weeks. Last month, I wrote an appeal on behalf of Mdm Zhu, who had just given birth to a baby girl, seeking the enhanced Baby Bonus cash gift as announced in Budget 2023.”
“The President stated in her speech that as we emerged from the pandemic, trust in the Government has strengthened. The President also emphasised that trust and unity are key to dealing with our priorities that includes securing our place in the world, growing our economy and refreshing our social compact. Indeed, today, Singapore is in a fortunate position to be a high trust country. I looked at the Edelman Trust Barometer 2023 that was reported on CNA on 15 March 2023. Trust in our Government as an institution was reported to be relatively high compared to a vast number of other countries. But we are not among the top three. So, we should not behave as though we have arrived. The results of the survey are consistent with anecdotal experience. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is the strong trust between our people and our Government that led to higher levels of vaccination, which in turn ensured that we kept mortality rates low and allowed us to reopen our borders and rebuild our lives much faster than in many other countries. We also know, though, that the trust built today can be easily lost tomorrow. This is the impermanent nature of this “being”. Trust cannot be assumed; it has to be conscientiously built and nurtured. The question I raise is how do we ensure that this strategic resource in the form of the reservoir of trust between our people and Government can be retained and even deepened as our nation navigates through an even more challenging socioeconomic environment? There are many facets to this. I wish to draw focus on three areas: (a) the work of our Public Service officers; (b) the work of our political leaders in this House; and at the end of my speech (c) the Forward Singapore exercise conducted by our 4G Team.”
“All our present-day advantages, hard won on the back of generations past are not considered, I quote, “a pinnacle of achievement, but as a base from which to scale new heights.” It sees as its bounden duty to lay strong foundations for future generations of Singaporeans. Indeed, this principle of steward leadership is specifically embedded in the concluding paragraph of the President’s speech. She urges us to, I quote, "keep faith with future generations yet unborn and build a Singapore that thrives and endures for many years to come.” The approach taken by the Government gives us in this House a unique opportunity. It is my hope that hon Members who will be speaking during this debate will nail their colours to the mast and unequivocally state where they stand on the Government’s ambitious plans to build an enduring and thriving Singapore for now and years to come. By doing so, we will be able to explore building a consensus on these plans. This will include an agreement on funding the projects involved in the plans. We will also be able to avoid the polarising effect of these long-term plans becoming political “footballs” of populist politicians. What we cannot afford to do as a small country with no natural resources is to adopt a “stop/start” or “feast and famine” approach in funding these important plans. Such an approach will quickly deplete our precious resources and will almost certainly spell doom for Singapore. Importantly, as I will be alluding to shortly in my speech, it is my belief that building consensus in this House on such key plans will help us retain trust and unity which the President has identified to be essential for the future of Singapore. I start with the issue of trust.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "that the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: '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'." Sir, a week ago in this House, her Excellency Mdm Halimah Yacob, the President of the Republic of Singapore, delivered a speech on the priorities, policies and programmes of the Government for the remainder of the current term of office. A plain review of the President’s speech and the 21 addenda issued by the respective Ministries and Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) since, reveals much more than that. The plans go well beyond the remainder of the current term of this Government’s office. A good number of these plans, especially the ones dealing with the transformation of our defence capabilities, implementing our net zero ambition, developing our sustainable aviation and maritime hubs, transport systems and infrastructural capabilities and building an innovation economy will take decades to complete. These plans are not just incremental in nature. They are imaginative and involve stretch targets. They are aimed at delivering decisive advantages to Singaporeans of the future. And I fully support them. They are not at all easy to achieve. To materialise these plans, we require the strong support of fellow Singaporeans. We also need highly competent and dedicated leaders at all levels of government, including the political leadership, to execute these plans. This is the defining characteristic of this People’s Action Party (PAP) Government. It sees as its responsibility not just to take care of the current generation of Singaporeans for the near term.”
“Successful organisations and people must be made to feel more invested in the lives of the less fortunate, so that they will feel morally obliged to do their part and donate. I seek the hon Minister's views on this important topic that, in my view, will have an impact on how we keep together as one society. Nurturing the "Heart-ware" of Singapore”
“Sir, I am cheered by the positive steps that have been taken by MSF in the recent past to help PwDs to be meaningfully employed. I am happy to note that MSF agreed to consider my suggestion made in this House to extend Inclusive Business Programme (IBP) launched by HDB and SG Enable in 2019 to involve JTC too. This will hopefully provide more employment opportunities to PwDs near where they live. As part of our efforts to be an inclusive society, more should be done to help persons with disabilities who need customised work support and a structured environment to work in. This is where the Enabling Business Hubs (EBHs) comes in. Like hon Members Ms Denise Phua and Ms Ng Ling Ling, I too seek an update from the Ministry in relation to plans in this regard. What is the assessment of our efforts to date, to reach the Ministry's target of 40% employment amongst PwDs by 2030? Strengthening the Culture of Giving Sir, over the years, Singapore has seen a steady growth in philanthropy. Over the past five years, the average annual donations collected amounted to about $3 billion. These are respectable numbers and a testimony to the generosity of grant-makers, corporations and individuals in Singapore. The question arises as to what we should do to strengthen this culture of giving here. In this year's Budget, the tax deduction rate of 250% was extended for another three years. I am uncertain as to whether this would move the needle by much. I say this because over the past five years, the amounts of tax- deductible donations remained stable at about $1 billion. It seems to me that we need to do something more fundamental.”
“Separately, I suggest that the hon Minister look into the plight of seniors who sell their flats to help fund the purchase of flats belonging to their children, relatives or friends but only to be turfed out later. I wonder if the Housing and Development Act may be reviewed to give them a proprietary interest over the purchased house even if they may not have been the registered owners. Boast Support for First-time Home Owners”
“Sir, in my recent speech in this House, I highlighted the important role that Singapore's public housing played in the development of our people, particularly our young children from less privileged backgrounds. I have two suggestions to strengthen its role. First, in cases of divorce involving young children, there may be a case to resolve the information asymmetry between the Courts, HDB and the divorcing couples on the issue of ensuring proper housing arrangements for their young children post-divorce. As is well known, the Court is required to look into the needs of children when deciding on the division of matrimonial property. I have seen cases where, for reasons of expediency, the husband and wife consent in Court to arrangements that run the danger of leaving the children without proper housing options. Thereafter, one of them will appeal for urgent rental housing for them and their children, presenting HDB with a fait accompli. This is not ideal. Next, this Government must decisively tackle overcrowding in rental flats that inhibit the ability of our children in these households to grow up well. In 2020, the hon Minister stated in this House that less than 10% of rental households have more than four members. On the ground, my sense is that there are informal arrangements which may not have been notified to HDB. The hon Minister also highlighted measures to help these households. All these are commendable but we should aim for zero overcrowding. Each child is precious and we must do our utmost to ensure that they grow up in more conducive housing environment.”
“Sir, last year, I delivered a speech in this House warning about the costs escalation on the part of the Town Council. Since my speech, I have noted several other potential misalignments with HDB and other agencies. Take for example, pruning of trees. When Town Councils prune trees, the idea is to preserve the natural shade that trees provide. However, with the escalation of bird roosting in HDB estates, NParks have advised Town Councils to carry out more aggressive and regular pruning of trees than would ordinarily be the case. That translates to more costs. Another example is the installation of automated fire rated roller shutters in carparks of new BTO flats due to a design consequence: the siting of a carpark near a substation. There is one example of it in Bukit Batok. Such roller shutters will have to be maintained every month, like lifts. This, again, increases costs. My concern is that all these escalating costs, if not defrayed by HDB, will have to be saddled by residents in form of increased Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC). This in turn will have an effect on cost of living, notwithstanding the S&CC grants. I invite the hon Minister’s views on this. Affordable Meals in Our Heartlands”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note that the HSA and NEA are working together to deal with this problem. Having regard to the increasing rate of vapers – and as I understand between 2020 to 2022, it is four times more vapers being caught – is there sufficient enforcement bandwidth with HSA to make sure that we send a strong signal that those who breach the laws in dealing with vaping, action would be taken against them? And really, we want to stem the tide, so to speak.”
“Mdm Chairperson, briefly, I would like to thank the hon Members who filed cuts for Head R's Estimates. I would like to thank the hon Second Minister and the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their responses, which she went into using a football terminology, went to extra time. But nonetheless, their plans for 2023 are clearly spelled out. I wish them well – as well as their colleagues in MinLaw – in really pursuing the mission of providing access to justice and maintaining the rule of law. With that, Mdm Chairperson, I would like to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $299,061,900 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $52,503,200 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Finally, I would like to ask about the Legal Aid Bureau's experience in providing legal advice through bot services to litigants in person, particularly those who are unable to afford to engage lawyers. Has this been popular and if so, I wonder if there are any plans to enhance these services? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Managing Community Disputes”
“It seems to me that, over the years, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) is seeing a trend of increasing applications filed by persons who have disputes with their neighbours. I feel that it is useful to deploy professional mediation services on site, so that these persons are engaged at the earliest opportunity before the problems become more intractable. I wonder if the hon Minister feels that there is value in greater deployment of professional mediators. If so, I would be grateful if he could tell us how to increase our deployment of mediation services in the neighbourhood. I now turn to Protection from Harassment Courts (PHCs). The online Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS) has made it very easy for a person to lodge a claim. Whilst it is a good development, there are unintended drawbacks too. It is possible for a person to lodge a completely unmeritorious claim. Because of the design feature of the system, such cases will still be registered, the defendants will still have to be served with the Court papers and they still have to be hauled into Court to answer the allegations which, on the face of it, are frivolous and vexatious. In such a situation, ironically, it is the claimant who is the harasser. We want to make the costs of filing complaints low, but when the cost of filing frivolous claims is zero, it is an invitation to play games. In November 2022, I suggested that applicable rules be amended to allow PHCs to summarily determine and dispose of frivolous and vexatious claims. The hon Minister was not with me. I seek a reconsideration of this matter.”
“This may be true, but the general principles are likely to be the same. In these circumstances and with a view to ensure that future generations of Singaporeans will benefit from the legal lessons and insights gained from this unique experience, I would like to suggest that the MinLaw chronicle the efforts of itself and its partners over the pandemic period. First, it would show that the chain of reasoning behind the legal structures which dealt with urgent and significant issues during the pandemic – these provide certainty and precedence for future events. Second, it will show their practical impact and outcome, which will allow us to plan better for the future. Thus, even though we have decided against framework legislation, the shape of what justice demands and confers during a pandemic is already known. This predictability and the ability to extrapolate from past experiences confer real resilience to our legal system. Turning to civil proceedings, I would like to ask for an update on the following matters. First, the Hague Service Convention. Some years back, I suggested that Singapore accede to this Convention. The hon Minister in 2022 said that his Ministry is working on it. May I ask for an update please? Second, the reform of the Civil Enforcement Framework. In November 2022, the hon Minister informed this House that his Ministry is working with stakeholders, such as the Minister of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Courts, to make enforcement of civil and family Court judgments easier. May I seek an update please? Third, an update on the probate e-service system. I had been advocating for this for quite some time. May I seek a confirmation on the rollout date, as well as the features of this system? I now turn to community dispute management issues.”
“Mdm Chairperson, I beg leave to move "that the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Last year, the hon Second Minister for Law lay emphasis on taking steps to secure our place in a post-COVID-19 world to ensure that we, as a country, will continue to thrive. This year, the hon Deputy Prime Minister in his Budget speech highlighted the need for resilience building to meet the challenges of the future. This was the same point I made in the debate last year. In my speech, I advocated that we identify strategic areas to build resilience both in the short and long term, even if it means that we have to incur some extra costs and inefficiency. In the context of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw)'s work to build resilience, what was noteworthy during the pandemic was the stupendous amount of work done within a short span of time with its partners, including the Attorney-General Chambers, other Government bodies and the private sector, to enact a legal framework that re-ordered legal obligations that could not have been performed and simplify insolvency procedures. They drew on technology to provide online platforms for claimants, as well as public-spirited volunteers to be assessors of claims. The end products – in the form of legislative solutions – has been widely admired for their elegance, simplicity in implementation and incisive thinking while meeting the ends of justice during a very trying period of time. The shape of these solutions, drawing as they do on general legal and policy principles, can be used again and again. I had previously suggested that we pass framework legislation that can be triggered, should our country face another similar crisis. The hon Second Minister demurred, stating that each crisis is likely to be different.”
“Mdm Chairperson, with your indulgence, I would like to thank the hon Members who filed 27 cuts spanning 52.5 minutes on various topics that made this debate quite enriching. But I also would like to extend my appreciation to hon Second Minister and the two hon Ministers of State for their responses and outlining their strategies to keep Singapore safe and secure. And I am sure the hon Members who join me in wishing them well in their respective missions. With that, Mdm Chairman, may I seek leave to withdraw the cut? [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $7,285,857,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,020,392,400 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“I understand that this is the group of persons who are more likely to reoffend as they struggle to steer clear from the triggers that made them consume drugs in the first place. May I ask what new measures, if any, are SPS and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) proposing to deal with this admittedly intractable issue? Mr Chairman, Sir, I have spoken on what I see to be the three elements of securing Singapore for the future. Courage is beyond price, but technology and developing the talents of our men and women in the Home Team, these require constant investments and our continued support. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and her colleagues on the issues that I have raised. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] New Citizen Selection Criteria”
“I believe that there is a case for SPS and its volunteers to partner the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), Ministry of National Development (MND) and other Government agencies to co-create bespoke plans for each desistor that has a series of incentives and disincentives during the supervision period of desistors. The purpose is to motivate desistors to be responsible family members and encourage reconciliation within their families. I truly believe that once our desistors are accepted back and reconciled with their families, the sky will be the limit for them. As a broader point, our community must play its part to encourage our desistors to make strong contributions to their families and enrich the Singapore story. They have talent, knowledge and experience which Singapore can benefit from. We need to get behind them and signal to them that we will support them, so long as they keep on the path of rehabilitation and reintegration. Early last year, I suggested in this House that our desistors be given an opportunity to perform at our National Day Parade. Having seen them perform, I know that they will be a hit amongst Singaporeans. I understood that my suggestion was made too late for National Day Parade (NDP) 2022. I wonder whether it will be in time for NDP 2023 instead. May I ask what strategies SPS will employ to leverage on the UEC, to help desistors overcome real-life challenges and lead crime-free lives? What is the permanent employment rate amongst our desistors? What would be the realistic stretch target for us to achieve in the years to come? We also need to pay special attention to desistors with drug-abusing pasts.”
“In 2022, it was announced in this House that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will develop a framework that will tackle online criminal activity, including content inciting violence in our community, to complement the current legislative measures. I seek an update on this matter, please. Let me now turn to the situation in our prisons. I commend the SPS for spearheading efforts with its stakeholders to keep the recidivism rate amongst desistors relatively low and stable. The five-year recidivism rate of 39.9%, which I believe is being released for the first time this year, is an encouraging statistic, even though there is a slight increase in the two-year recidivism rate by 0.4% to 20.4%. I was glad to note that the Government has announced in Budget 2023 the Uplifting Employment Credit (UEC) for companies to employ desistors. This was something that I pushed for in this House when I suggested that the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) for ex-offenders, to help them during the COVID-19 pandemic, be turned into a permanent scheme. I think, from the experience of the JGI and the steps taken by SPS, we have an opportunity to aim for even lower recidivism rates. The Government's UEC creates an important incentive for employers to seriously consider investing in our desistors. In turn, by being gainfully employed in good jobs that have good prospects, it gives our desistors the best chance to break free from their past. To effect permanent changes, we have to start with the individual and work with their families too. This will not be easy, but it has to be done. I understand that SPS has, over the years, built a substantial number of volunteers who are roped in to help with reintegration support for prison inmates and desistors.”
“Over time, these key performance indicators (KPIs) became less relevant with the emergence of new kinds of crime, such as internet-based scams. I had previously suggested that the Police publish how much it has seized pursuant to criminal investigations and how much is returned to victims of crime as a KPI. This is done in the United Kingdom (UK). The hon Minister informed that his Ministry does not track such data. I seek a review, as just a few days ago, the hon Minister of State announced in this House, that over a five-month period in 2022, virtual assets amounting to $172.8 million were seized. Hence, it appears to me that there is an ability to track such data. As I alluded to in my preceding paragraphs, even as I speak about the need for technology, I also see that there remains an irreducible human dimension in keeping Singapore safe and secure. We must ensure that our investment in developing our Home Team's human capital is kept in tandem too. What is the hon Minister's plan in this regard? I now turn to Singapore's security situation. It seems to me, by reference to the increasing number of recent cases of young persons being self-radicalised through access to harmful online content, that there is a case to take a relook at the legislative levers to ensure that our Home Team officers, particularly the Internal Security Department (ISD), have the tools to prevent the proliferation of such cases. Otherwise, the impact on Singapore can be significant and severe. We should remind ourselves that terrorists need only be successful once. ISD, on the other hand, has to be successful all the time.”
“It is clear to me that technology has, and will, continue to play an increasingly important role in securing better outcomes in operations. There are a number of factors that drive this, including the reality that our Home Team's manpower is likely to remain lean and the likelihood that our Singaporeans will constantly expect more of the Home Team over time. We must, in short, do more with less. Over the years, the Home Team has invested heavily on technology. For instance, Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers leverage on video analytics and live tracking technology to maintain security at the Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints. The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) is trialling an unmanned and automated urine collection and screening system for its prison inmates. Whilst it is correct that we, in the House, support the Home Team's investment in technology to achieve operational efficiencies, we also need to be able to gauge the effectiveness of investments. I, therefore, wish to ask the hon Minister the following questions: How much has the Home Team invested in technological solutions in the past five years? What has been the tangible returns from these investments? What lessons have been drawn? And what would be the framework under which further investments will be made? I also wish to understand how the Home Team Science and Technology Agency, set up in 2019, has aided the development of cost-effective science and technological capabilities for our Home Team operations. In addition, I wish to better understand how the Police's effectiveness is being measured. Several decades back, the Police relied on the prevalence of the five preventable crimes as a measure of its effectiveness.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg leave to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100". On 18 February 2023, the Operation Lionheart contingent of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), comprising 68 officers, which included two Full-time National Servicemen (NSmen) doctors and four canines, returned home after being deployed in Türkiye for search and rescue operations. This followed the devastating earthquake that has, to-date, killed more than 50,000 people in the region. Our officers under the command of Col Chew Keng Tok, were activated to fly to Türkiye at short notice. There, for 10 days, they operated in very difficult conditions. They had to contend with freezing temperatures, the ever-present threat of the further collapse of buildings and the calamitous security situation. In fact, rescue officers from several other countries suspended their operations owing to the prevailing security situation. Despite these challenges, our officers persisted. They saved lives, comforted many and brought honour to our country. That our officers were able to execute their duties, in such a way as to win the admiration of the Turkish people, is a testimony to their sterling standard of training and preparedness, strong sense of duty and purpose, excellent leadership and high morale. Sir, I am sure all hon Members of this House will join me thanking our SCDF officers, as well as that of their family members for their courage and their spirit of sacrifice, in the name of our country. [Applause.] From the reports that I have read, I note that our SCDF officers' work was enabled by the technology of our Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) equipment, such as fibre-optic scopes to detect lives.”
“Sir, in a Straits Times article dated 21 December 2022, entitled "India set to become world's fastest-growing economy on post-COVID spending boom", it was reported that India is expected to grow 6% in this fiscal year ending 31 March 2024. Given this blistering pace of growth, it is imperative that Singapore does more to engage our giant Asian neighbour for mutual benefit, not just between the countries but also ASEAN. I was happy to note an initiative that Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi from India suggested in 2018 when he visited Singapore was made reality on 21 February 2023, when Prime Minister Lee and Prime Minister Modi both launched the PayNow-Unified Payments Interface (UPI) Linkage that will allow for cheaper, faster and safer cross-border retail payments and remittances for businesses and individuals. This is indicative of a strong partnership between Singapore and India. I would like to ask the hon Minister for his assessment of Singapore's relations with India, and what we are doing to deepen India's engagement here and in the region. Engagements with Emerging Markets”
“Sir, just a point of clarification. In my speech, I made reference to the respective jurisdictions of the Police and the CPIB in investigating corruption offences. I was really referring to investigative powers such as invoking the power of arrest. I do appreciate the hon Minister's point about the charging decision, which is, of course, reserved to the public prosecutor. Nonetheless, I appreciate the hon Minister's response, that the CPIB does not need a porting over of the provisions in the Penal Code and I may have to address this matter with the hon Minister for Home Affairs as to whether these provisions in these circumstances would be obsolete and should be repealed.”
“What is clear is that this case involved foreign bribery. Hence, to find jurisdiction under the PCA currently, one of the ingredients of corruption must have happened in Singapore. This is because there is no extraterritorial reach of the PCA vis-à-vis Singapore companies. CPIB’s stated policy in this House is that it will investigate all cases whether they happened locally or overseas. In these circumstances, it makes sense to extend the ambit of PCA to cover situations where acts of foreign bribery were committed by a Singapore company. Lastly, Sir, there have been steps taken in other jurisdictions to enlarge the ability —”
“Sir, imagine a situation whereby the anti-corruption agency of a country arrests a high-ranking police officer for a corruption offence. In retaliation, the police arrests a high-ranking officer from the agency on what is believed to be a trumped-up charge of corruption too. This scenario may seem fanciful in Singapore, but unfortunately there has been precedent for such kind of behaviour elsewhere. From a jurisdictional perspective though, it can happen here. This is because the Director of CPIB is vested with the powers under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 (PCA) to investigate corruption. At the same time, there exists anti-corruption provisions dealing with public servants in the Penal Code 1871. Investigations under these provisions come under purview of the Police. When I asked in this House whether there is utility in maintaining the Penal Code provisions which have not been used in the recent past, the Minister for Home Affairs felt that there is as these provisions are more targeted. He however accepted that these provisions should be ported over to the PCA. Against this backdrop, it is my respectful view that there is scope for the CPIB to reopen the review of the PCA that it closed in October last year without taking any step. We should put to bed this potential jurisdictional issue as quickly as possible. There are other reasons for this review. I had recently suggested that PCA provide for extraterritorial reach with respect to Singapore registered companies. Let me expand on the reasons for this by reference to the KOM case. In 2017, the AGC served KOM with a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution for an offence under the PCA. In lieu of prosecution, KOM had to pay more than $100 million to the Singapore authorities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note the decision of MHA to convene a BOI to look into the circumstances of the unfortunate death of SGT1 Edward Go. May I just ask, in terms of timing, why is it preferred that the BOI be convened to commence its inquiry after the conclusion of the Coroner's inquiry case? I say this because to my knowledge, when it comes to deaths that are being investigated by the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Armed Forces Council under the Singapore Armed Forces Act, these things happen in tandem. The inquiries are not necessarily the same as well. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Essentially, it depends on the circumstances of the matter. In this case, we find that we are going to have the Police investigations as well as the Coroner's investigations. And at the end of the day, both of them are looking at the different aspects of it. We know the Coroner's findings will reveal the how, when and where the death happened. And with regard to the Police investigations, there will also be further insights to it. We think that it is better for the BOI to look at all these findings and make its assessment.”
“In this regard, I highlight again that within the past five years, there are three completed BTO developments in Bukit Batok SMC. This shows there is and continues to be demand for Primary 1 places in this constituency. To underscore this point, I wish to point out that PEPS and Keming Primary School, the two primary schools that are close to Bukit Batok residents, are perpetually oversubscribed for Primary 1 places for a number of years now. BVPS therefore continues to provide an essential service to Bukit Batok, which is appreciated by all. There is also an impact posed by the reversal of a decision to operate an MOE kindergarten at the BVPS site. What is the alternative for affected families? I say all this, not because I disagree with the decision per se, or as a petulant response to a lack of consultation. If I, the SAC members, affected residents and parents had nothing of value to add, if a discussion would have yielded no additional insights, if there were no people who acted in reliance of certain facts which are now changed, if all these were the case, it is perfectly fine that we learn of this ex post facto. I wonder though whether this is the position that the hon Minister takes. I look forward to hearing from him.”
“I appreciate that there are differences in the details of the two moves, but both are relocations of schools which are important community nodes. My second question is why were there so many flip-flops on what to do with BVPS within a short span of time even accounting for the effect of the pandemic? Respectfully, it does not give people confidence that MOE is on top of the matter and has made proper plans for the future. Such relocations, when not given proper notice, causes real hardship to families. This point was raised to me by Mr Nazri, whom I met at a house visit just last week. He and his wife have two children. The elder child, a daughter, is in Primary 1 at BVPS. They had originally attempted to get a place for her at Princess Elizabeth Primary School (PEPS). The hon Minister would know that the local demand for Primary 1 places at PEPS had shot up significantly after the completion of housing developments in a neighbouring constituency. It is not surprising therefore that they failed to be balloted a place at PEPS even though they were living close by. They therefore enrolled her in BVPS which was about 1.5 kilometres away. Fortunately, Mrs Nazri’s mother is living nearby and therefore is able to take care of his daughter whilst he and his wife are working. By 2027, however, when the school is due to move to a new site which is at least two kilometres away, she will be in Primary 5. Both Mr and Mrs Nazri are concerned that the move will further inconvenience them. I fully appreciate their angst. My third and final question is, having withdrawn essential primary school services, what is the Government’s plan to support affected children and parents in Bukit Batok SMC?”
“Surely, there should be consultation amongst the affected residents, parents, SAC members and other stakeholders? This was the point that several residents made to me. Mr Jeremy Ng and his wife are a young couple. They reside at SkyPeak. They moved in around 2018. They are trying to have children. They also have a five-year-old nephew whom they are taking care of. Their decision to purchase a unit at SkyPeak was influenced by the fact that there will be primary school services within walking distance. This was what was represented in the HDB brochures. One of the schools in the vicinity, Keming Primary School, is perpetually full by Phase 2C. Hence BVPS provides an important assurance that they will be able to secure a primary school place within walking distance from their home. Another person, Mdm Linda Chong, also a SkyPeak resident, has two children, aged 19 months and five years respectively. Her elder child was born in the same year that she moved into SkyPeak; 2018. She is naturally concerned about the lack of MOE Kindergarten and primary school facilities within walking distance once BVPS moves out. In fact, I wonder if the hon Minister’s attention was drawn to the representations made in the HDB brochures, ECDA’s communication about PCF @ Sparkletots partnering the MOE Kindergarten at BVPS as well as prior communication to the parents at the time when the decision to relocate BVPS was made? If not, this is precisely why a consultation with stakeholders would have helped. In comparison, I note from a Mothership article dated 10 February 2023 that the Government was in consultation with ACS’ board of governors for a year before the announcement to move ACS Primary to Tengah was announced also on 9 February 2023.”
“The expansion works were completed in or around 2021. In November 2022, ECDA informed PCF that the partnership with the MOE Kindergarten at BVPS is delayed to 2027/2028. I wish to add that news about the designation of BVPS as the site of an MOE Kindergarten percolated into the community. I personally spoke to two persons, Mdm Wendy Koh and Mr Dennis Chua, both residing at SkyPeak, on Monday this week. They told me that they were aware of this matter and had welcomed this development. Against this backdrop, the Government’s decision dated 9 February 2023 to relocate BVPS came like a bolt from the blue. I spoke to BVPS’ School Advisory Committee (SAC) Chairman, Mr Tommi Toh; Vice-Chairman, Mr Sonny Yuen as well as Mr Don Tay, an SAC member last week. They informed that the school told them the news about one hour before MOE went public. Mr Tommi Toh, an old boy of the school who also got his two daughters to attend the same school, expressed that he was “shocked” by the decision. He felt that the SAC should have been consulted and its views solicited as a key stakeholder. Mr Don Tay felt the same way and informed that he does not fault the principal of the school as she told him she too got to know of the decision without much prior notice. I learnt about the matter on the same day of the announcement. So, my first question to the hon Minister is simply this. Against the backdrop of the facts I outlined, why was there no consultation? We are not dealing with an urgent matter that requires decisive action such as defending the Singapore dollar. We are not also dealing with a market sensitive matter such as increasing stamp duty when buying properties. On the contrary, we are dealing with a decision to withdraw essential educational services from a neighbourhood.”
“Thankfully, with understanding from all sides concerned and arrangements such as school bus services at an attractive rate, the concerns were largely addressed. In July 2019, MOE informed the students and parents of BVPS that as more time was required to enhance the design of the upgrading to allow for more efficient use of space and better traffic management, the BVPS upgrading plan would be delayed by one year. As a result, the move was postponed to January 2021 instead. The school was to return to the site by December 2022. Around a year later, in 2020, the students and parents were told that the move will be delayed further by one year from January 2021 to January 2022 instead. On 11 March 2021, whilst we were in the midst of the pandemic, BVPS informed its students and parents that the upgrading plan for BVPS, which was scheduled to begin in January 2022, has been put on hold. By that time, the former Shuqun Secondary School site, which BVPS was supposed to move into, was used as a Regional Screening Centre. It remains as a Joint Testing and Vaccination Centre. It is therefore well known that the move cannot happen, owing to the effect of the pandemic. They were also told as follows: (a) BVPS will be staying put; (b) MOE will be reviewing the project requirements further; and (c) pertinently, they will be kept informed on the review outcome once it is completed. In a separate development, going back to around 2020, PCF Sparkletots @ SkyPeak, which is located near BVPS, was told that BVPS was to be designated as an MOE kindergarten from 1 January 2024. PCF was asked to partner the MOE Kindergarten at BVPS. PCF expanded its infant care and childcare facilities so that it can provide a pipeline for enrolment at the MOE Kindergarten at BVPS.”
“The community, through the SAC and grassroots organisations, gives tangible support to BVPS in the form of raising funds for the school's development plans, helping children from less privileged backgrounds and providing opportunities to school students to develop their character by participating in community assignments. Its importance became more accentuated after the recent completion of BTO projects in its vicinity between 2017 and 2018. They are Skyline I and II and SkyPeak. These BTOs comprise about 2,700 units. That translates to about 10,000 people. The majority of these units are occupied by young couples and families with young children. In fact, BVPS was specifically used to advertise the desirability of these BTO units in HDB brochures. Let me read out an excerpt from the brochure advertising Skyline I and II @ Bukit Batok. Under the header "Feel the Pulse of Vibrant Living", it is stated as follows, "Parents with school-going children will be delighted to find a good range of educational institutions in close proximity. These include Bukit View Primary." I now go to the brochure advertising SkyPeak @ Bukit Batok. Under the header "Where Conveniences Abound", it is stated that "schools in the vicinity include Bukit View Primary." BVPS also provided a photo for the brochure and was accredited for it. On 18 May 2018, students and parents of BVPS were told that the school, which was originally scheduled for onsite upgrading, would instead be shifted temporarily to the former site of Shuqun Secondary School for two years from January 2020 to December 2021. This is to facilitate major upgrading works at the school. This caused some concern amongst parents who had to make transport arrangements to shuttle their children to and fro the new site.”
“This provides an added advantage – the sunlight of scrutiny of Government action – something hon Members know I have advocated for in this House not too long ago. There is therefore a healthy tension in the relationship between us. It is not at all personal. On one hand, as MPs, we accord the Minister, his office and Ministry with respect. At the same time, the Minister takes our feedback seriously. He knows we cannot be browbeaten. He knows that we will not hesitate to pursue issues important to our constituents and fellow Singaporeans. This is how we prevent groupthink and the creation of echo chambers within the PAP. In short, we have backbone, we are independent, we strive to keep the Ministers on the straight and narrow. At the same time, we are fully responsible and accountable for our actions too. We reflect this reality in our daily interactions with all political office holders and civil servants. I shall now discuss the Ministry of Education (MOE)'s decision announced on 9 February 2023 to relocate Bukit View Primary School (BVPS) to a place outside the constituency by January 2027. Let me lay out the facts first. BVPS commenced operations in 1986. It provides essential primary school services to residents of Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency (SMC) and nearby constituencies. Over more than three and a half decades, the school forged a close relationship with the Bukit Batok community. Senior community leaders and residents of Bukit Batok as well as former students serve in the School Advisory Committee (SAC).”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to start by relating an incident that happened in my rookie year as a Member of Parliament. I was having a cup of tea with hon Members at a table in the Members' Room. From the corner of my eye, I saw the Prime Minister entering the room and walking to us. I said to my Parliamentary colleagues, in what I thought was an undertone, "Boss coming." After sitting down beside me, the Prime Minister turned to me and said, "I am not your boss." Thinking back, what the Prime Minister said profoundly captures the essence of the relationship between backbencher Members of Parliament (MPs) of the governing party and the political office holders. As MPs of the governing party, we are not subordinates of the Ministers. On the contrary, we have an important responsibility in scrutinising Government action and holding Ministers to account. It is worth reminding ourselves that structurally, we are independent and free to express our thoughts in this House on matters that affect our constituents and Singaporeans. The principle of collective responsibility that binds the Cabinet does not extend to backbenchers of the governing party. Of course, we have to abide by the Whip in voting according to the party platform. That is a separate matter involving party discipline and that applies to Opposition MPs too. My party colleagues and I in the backbench take this responsibility of holding Ministers to account seriously. We engage Ministers through correspondence, face-to-face meetings and party caucuses. We also do this through the Parliamentary processes, particularly by filing Parliamentary Questions and Motions.”
“Sir, may I ask a supplementary question in relation to the expediting of the housing projects, the BTOs? Would the issue of quality be a matter for consideration? Because as we expedite the building of BTOs, one area of concern is whether we can ensure the quality of the BTOs that are being built are of sufficient standards, so as to avoid issues that the hon Member Ms Carrie Tan spoke about just now – ceiling leakages and so on.”