Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 36.
“Today, waiting times can stretch up to four to five years for BTO flats. When people get their flats later, they may also put off having children earlier, a largely perverse policy outcome in the face of our efforts to encourage young couples to form families and have children. The decision to build to order rather than ahead of demand has likely had an impact on the reproductive rates of Singaporeans. It should not come as a surprise if couples and newer generations of Singaporeans want to occupy their own home before starting a family and having children. Let me share a newspaper article with an approach to accessibility that needs to be reviewed. This will address accessibility in a meaningful way. The multi page advertisement from HDB in The Straits Times is dated 3 July 1989. It is titled, "The new HDB booking system, how it works for you." And I quote from this newspaper article: "Under the booking system, HDB will announce every quarter, the building contracts it has awarded. The number of units of each type of flat, their location, layout and design and the price range for each type of flat in each location as well as the expected date of completion will also be made known. HDB will simultaneously release broad plans of the building contracts for the subsequent nine months. The number and type of flat and their locations will also be made known. The details provided in these broad plans may change depending on the demand for flats in the area. Thus, HDB will in effect announce a rolling 12-month building programme every three months. It will do the same at the start of every quarter and applicant who has booked a flat will normally take possession of his flat in about two and a half years after booking.”
“Such sales take place even in areas such as Woodlands, heightening the anxieties of parents and young families and adults with regard to affordability. While the house price to annual income (HPI) is a common gauge to appreciate the affordability of HDB flats, in the Singapore context, it is the taxpayer subsidy, or what the Government refers to as generous subsidies, that is keeping the number in check. In all likelihood, either these subsidies will grow ever larger to keep HDB flats affordable or more subsidies will have to be recouped at the point of sale, similar to how it is proposed for Prime Location Public Housing (PLH) flats currently. This would be a somewhat analogous albeit different situation to the PSP's proposal for deferred land cost by way of its Affordable Homes Scheme. In one situation, in this case, PLH flats, a designated portion of taxpayer subsidies are returned to the Consolidated Fund. In the other, land cost will be returned into the past reserves. The Government regularly trots out that the HDB housing backlog after the Asian Financial Crisis as a reason for not wanting to build excessively. However, this sacred cow is one that needs to be slaughtered, particularly because of the serious implications an overheated housing market has on public housing prices for the common man and woman. Clearly, the orthodoxy is one that feeds itself. If the Government does not release adequate parcels of land quickly enough, a bubble can rapidly form, one that has a direct implication on HDB BTO and resale prices and the prospect of an increase in taxes to fund subsidies. What about the word "accessible"? Accessibility includes not just being able to apply for and book a flat. It also means securing a flat in a timely way.”
“The Government knows the application rates for HDB flats and controls HDB allocation. The Government is the largest landowner and developer of land and is the regulator of land policy. Because of a preponderance of control over land supply, the Government is in the best position to ensure housing prices remain affordable and stable. The levers at the disposal of the Government do not just include introducing cooling measures overnight by way of fiat. They include building public housing ahead of demand and stepping up private land sales to meet demand at reasonable prices. The fact is that the prices of HDB BTO flats, resale flats and private condominiums generally move in synchrony – which brings me to today's two Motions. The different phrasing of today's two Motions indicates the different thrust of each. The Government's Motion implies that HDB flats have been kept affordable and accessible while PSP's Motion suggests that flats are now not affordable and accessible. Some of the difference could be due to a different understanding of what each word means and represents. I would argue that affordable HDB flats mean HDB flat pricing that is not out of synchrony with salaries. For example, the rise in resale flat prices, should not be perceived to outstrip salary increases. Resale prices have increased because people need homes and the HDB did not build enough BTOs to meet demand, which should have been known and calculable, notwithstanding COVID-19 related delays. Over the last five years, the prices of larger resale flat, specifically 5-room and executive flats, have risen even faster than 4-room resale flats. Million-dollar HDB flats no longer make the news.”
“One academic at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy put it this way, "The government hasn't been entirely consistent in their messaging with regard to housing policy, which created the uncertainty and anxiety." Singaporeans, or at least some Singaporeans, felt that there was a reneging of what they perceived as an asset appreciation promised by PAP. I now move on to the second part of my speech – where are we now? Property prices in Singapore have soared in the last couple of years. As far as HDB flats are concerned, resale prices are breaking new records. Singapore is unique in this regard. In most parts of the developed world, property prices are moderating or falling because of rising interest rates. Since the US Federal Reserve System started raising rates in March 2022, the situation in other countries has developed in a normal way. When interest rates rise, property transactions decrease and prices drop. In Singapore, despite steeply rising interest rates for nearly a year now, prices have shot sky high. This is not normal. It is only because of new cooling measures that the property market shows signs of moderating. The fact of Singapore's property prices going in a different direction from many other countries provides some proof that external circumstances are not the cause. Sir, housing prices are essentially a matter of supply and demand. As far as property in Singapore is concerned, the Singapore Government controls the supply of new property in the market, both in the public and private sectors. The Singapore Government also controls the number of new citizens and permanent residents (PRs) and has full information on birth rates. It controls the inflow of work and employment pass holders.”
“The group's report restated the constraints policy-makers faced while advocating a greater role to be played by the private sector in the provision of public housing and even suggesting the extension of grants for private home buyers. As a country, we have been at the current property cycle before – more recently, slightly more than a decade ago, when the prices of HDB flats increased rapidly after the Global Financial Crisis. To deal with that, the then Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan announced the policy decision to delink HDB prices from resale prices. However, much less was broadcasted about the fact that the increased subsidies to make flats affordable would be paid by taxpayers. This is significant because a large part of the government solution whenever HDB prices went, perhaps, out of hand, would be to resort to deploying more taxpayer monies, ostensibly in greater quanta, to make up the difference. A significant overlay to the property cycles over the last few decades has been the public expectation that HDB flats would be ever appreciating assets. This incorrect expectation was created, perpetuated and not corrected by previous PAP Governments. A more responsible narrative would have informed the public that capital gains will be possible only in the short to medium term. It should have been made clear to all that quite simply, public housing on a 99-year lease cannot be expected to appreciate endlessly. A few years ago, then Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong finally spoke the unvarnished truth about 99-year leases – that flats would be returned to HDB and only a small percentage of flats would undergo the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme. There was a highly negative public reaction to this clarification.”
“In 1971, there was a significant shake-up in public housing when the Government allowed HDB flats to be resold for a profit, although not investment. This created the HDB resale market. In 1973, an amendment to the Land Acquisition Act allowed the Government to purchase land from owners at prices independent of the land's purchase price or prevailing market rates. This allowed the Government to purchase a great deal of land at low prices. This historical fact accounts for the ever so often heard view that because HDB bought the land cheaply and since that land would be returned to the state after 99 years, there is scope or there could be scope for the state to take a different, more enlightened view about land costs in order to make public housing more affordable and consider other approaches beyond strict market pricing to keep HDB flats affordable. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, property prices in Singapore kept rising. Lease decay did not factor heavily in the public consciousness as many flats were relatively new. However, a serious correction to housing prices hit hard on the back of the Asian Financial Crisis. After the 2001 elections, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong promised a review of costs. Much was expected of the Economic Review Committee, in particular, the Land Working Group. Then, land costs came into the gun sights of those worrying about the cost of doing business in Singapore and the cost of housing. Instead of precipitating bold changes, the Land Working Group took the view that it was tough to demolish and rebuild Singapore's land policy.”
“Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament have spoken on a number of relevant areas and shared our views on the Motions before the House. Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Louis Chua Kheng Wee has spoken about the inadequacy of Build-To-Order HDB launches. Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Jamus Lim has spoken about the tension between housing as an asset and retirement solution. Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Leon Perera has proposed building ahead of demand and the prospect of 70-year leases to build up CPF retirement funds and Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Gerald Giam has spoken of how to arrest resale prices. As for my speech, it is in four parts. First, I will touch on how housing policy has evolved in the past. Second, I will discuss where we stand on both affordability and accessibility of HDB flats. Third, I will make some inquiries on how land is priced. And finally, I will ask the Minister some questions on public housing and taxpayer subsidies. Let me start with a look at public housing policy in the past. In 1964, the Government introduced the Home Ownership for the People Scheme so that Singaporeans would own rather than rent their flats. It was intended that through home ownership, Singaporeans would have a tangible stake in Singapore's success. The policy then was that flats would only be sold to families earning less than $800 a month. The Home Ownership for the People Scheme did not really take off at the beginning as not many people could afford the 20% downpayment in cash to secure a flat. This changed dramatically some four years later in 1968 when CPF funds were made available to pay for public housing.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for that. I asked the question because in 2013, Mr Khaw Boon Wan spoke of the HPI and wanting to ensure that the HPI comes down to 4. That was why I was asking the question to the Senior Minister of State. When she said anything below 5 is affordable, is that a shift of the Government's position?”
“Mr Speaker, just a quick question for the Senior Minister of State. I may have missed the point that she was making about HPI. She said any number below 5 looks attractive. I believe this is what the Senior Minister of State had said. Can I just confirm if she was referring to the resale prices, or to the BTO prices? And if it referred to non-mature BTO prices? I am not quite clear when you say HPI below 5, which category of flats you are referring to – resale or BTO?”
“Just to confirm the statement in the annual report. It refers to the annual deficit in HDB. HDB's annual deficit is fully covered by a Government grant. In addition, HDB receives a Government grant to preserve the capital gains attributable to past governments on disposal of the protected assets in accordance with the Constitution. The cumulative Government grants to HDB since its establishment in 1960 amounted to $42 billion. So, I am not sure whether the land cost is specifically $40 billion, as stated by the Member.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai on a point he made about legacy land costs in the 1960s. Mr Murali Pillai shared a figure of $40 billion, which he said he got from the HDB annual report. Can I just confirm which annual report is he referring to? Because at page 50 of the latest annual report, there is a reference to accumulated Government grants provided to HDB since its establishment in 1960 and that is $42 billion. Is he referring to that figure? But that does not refer to land costs. I just want to understand from Mr Murali Pillai – is that the figure he is referring to? Because my understanding is, it is not referring to land costs.”
“Would it be possible for all the WP speakers to speak tomorrow? It will not be against the Standing Orders.”
“My request – and I am not going to be argumentative about this, but there are 23 speakers on the speakers list. And there are four WP speakers on the Motion, my request is four —”
“I understand, Speaker. The thing is, we have the Minister who has just given out nine annexes and we would like to respond more fully to the Minister's contributions and we understand that — unless of course, the debate on the Motion is going to be completed today.”
“Will there be any objection for Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and the Workers’ Party (WP) Members to speak tomorrow?”
“Mr Speaker, not a question. Just a request perhaps to allow for a few more minutes to have some Members ask a few more questions on this subject, given the public interest in this issue.”
“Just a quick clarification on the reply from Minister on constructive knowledge. I think the point, really, is not whether that in itself is an offence, but what that can lead to, in terms of identifying individuals who could be identified as knowing more and being aware of or signing off on cheques or whatever the payment process was of corrupt payments. Not so much the constructive knowledge itself. It is about the entire corpus of facts and how that could potentially identify individuals for prosecution, since Keppel was already dealt with as a corporate entity. On the second supplementary question I asked with regard to MLAs, I do not believe that Minister has replied, although in her early response, she did say three MLA requests were put to Brazil, if I understand. But all in all, how many MLA requests were put? And it would appear from the reply that the Minister had given to the Member for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan, in 2022, I will just quote from the reply: "The Keppel Offshore & Marine case is complex and transactional in nature involving multiple foreign authorities and several more potential witnesses based overseas." Several more potential witnesses. "We have requested mutual legal assistance from foreign authorities to obtain additional information from these witnesses and are still awaiting the response to these requests." So, it appeared that there were responses to mutual legal assistance requests. But in the latest one that was put out, there were no replies. This is what I understood from the Minister.”
“No, Minister. My simple query was in relation to the reply that the Minister gave in 2018. The Minister directed me at that point to a Keppel press release which indicated that the current Board of Keppel was not aware of these corrupt payments. So, my supplementary question today deals with the constructive knowledge of the Board at the material time, not the current Board that was referred to in 2018 – because these corrupt payments actually go back, well before 2018. That is the purport of the question.”
“And was the nature of the information sought, such that it would suggest a successful prosecution would have been possible? Because from some of these earlier replies, it would appear that a witness testimony was forthcoming but that further clarifications were required. So, was it a case that there were repeated MLAs that could have helped? Or was it a case that the Government concluded this is not going anywhere?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two questions for the Minister. I refer to the Minister's extended reply in January 2018, shortly after news of the deferred prosecution agreement came to light and the Workers' Party Members of Parliament filed a series of questions in Parliament and the Minister replied to those. Arising out of that Sitting, I had a supplementary question about the knowledge of the Keppel Board of Directors. The Minister replied to say that the current Board of the Directors of Keppel Corporation and its unit, KOM, "were not aware of the legal payments made to secure projects in Brazil." Can I confirm if investigations included determining the constructive knowledge of Keppel Board of Directors at the material time that corrupt payments were made to secure contracts in Brazil? That is the first question. I can repeat the question. I would like to confirm if Police and CPIB investigations included determining the constructive knowledge of Keppel Board of Directors at the material time? That means, not the current board that the Minister referred to in 2018, but at the material time when corrupt payments were made to secure contracts in Brazil. That is the first question. The second supplementary question pertains to Member of Parliament for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan, who had filed three separate PQs seeking an update on the Keppel case in 2018, 2019 and 2022. In the final reply, the Government said that it had requested for further mutual legal assistance from foreign authorities to obtain additional information from the witnesses and the Government was still awaiting a response. All in all, how many mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests were made by the Government to various governments?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just following up from Minister's point on subsidies – I filed a written question for yesterday's session, enquiring the dollar value of subsidies allocated by HDB in each year from 2010 to 2022 for HDB BTO apartments in both mature and non-mature estates respectively, and how many of such flats were constructed each year. Minister replied saying that the market subsidies are not directly comparable across projects, launches and years as they depend on prevailing market conditions, attributes of the BTO projects offered and prevailing household incomes. I understand that answer. But Minister in his reply did not set out the subsidies for each year. I cannot understand why that information cannot be made public because those subsidies are taxpayers' subsidies. The taxpayer is actually funding the home ownership programme, vis a vis subsidies. I need the Minister's explanation as to why that information cannot be given out by the Ministry.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister. Just following up on the Deputy Prime Minister's replies to some of the supplementary questions. With regard to Temasek's independent review of the FTX imbroglio, this independent review, is it an external one, external to Temasek, or is it internal, a Temasek team reporting on Temasek's investment in FTX? The second question is, what thresholds must be crossed before AGO steps in to audit a Temasek investment or Temasek investment process in a company?”
“It is possible to conceive of a situation where the lawyer who made the prior application, which was an abuse of process, was not thorough enough in raising evidence or legal arguments that were reasonably available. The prisoner then changes lawyers and the new, more diligent lawyer then raises the evidence and legal arguments which were available previously but not raised. In such a possible scenario, based on the Bill before us, due to section 60G(15)(d), the Court of Appeal must not grant the application for PACC permission. In such a scenario, it would appear that the Court of Appeal will have no discretion to take into consideration such a situation. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether such a scenario was considered when the Bill was drafted and if it was, how does it relate to the proposed section 60G(15) (d)? The remedy against the lawyer who did not raise the arguments could be a personal cost order. But the prisoner should not be unfairly prejudiced. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary why the words "must not" were used? Is it necessary to remove the Court of Appeal's discretion in this case? Mdm Deputy Speaker, all my clarifications seek to promote fair outcomes for all parties, which I am sure is also the intention of the Government. I look forward to hearing the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's responses. Subject to the replies to my queries, I support the Bill.”
“If section 60G(7)(d) is not meant to be a threshold standard but merely a consideration which could possibly be disregarded if an arguable case comes before the Court, I would suggest that this be confirmed in the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's round-up speech. My third clarification concerns the phrase "even with reasonable diligence" used in the proposed section 60G(7)(a), section 60G(15)(c) and more than once in section 60M. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the intention in using the word "even" in the phrase "even with reasonable diligence"? My reading is that the use of the word "even" suggests that reasonable diligence is being compared with a higher standard, say due diligence. Is that the intention? If so, then to the extent that it endeavours to set a reachable standard, I do not object to it. If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can clarify this, then, should the Bill be passed, it would make clear to the Court of Appeal the legislative intent is to set a lower standard than that of due diligence. The use of the term "reasonable diligence" brings me to my fourth clarification. The proposed section 60G(15) provides that where there has been abuse of process, the Court of Appeal, I quote, "must not" grant the application for PACC permission. This is unless evidence or legal arguments are presented that were not adduced before the finding of abuse of process and evidence or legal arguments could not even with reasonable diligence have been adduced in Court before the finding. The phrase used is "must not", which can only mean that the Court of Appeal judge has no discretion in the matter. Here, Madam, there is a need to distinguish between the prisoner and the lawyer representing that prisoner.”
“In the interest of achieving a fair process for PACCs, I have a few clarifications about the Bill. My first clarification relates to the statement made by the MinLaw spokesman and quoted The Straits Times of 7 November. The spokesman said, and I quote, "The proposed amendments will clearly set out the process for such applications and the Court will have discretion to allow challenges, even if they do not comply with this process". May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is this discretion referred to here and what is its extent? Is the spokesman merely referring to the provisions in the proposed section 60J, under which the Court of Appeal may treat an application in another Court as a PACC application? If not, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify? My second clarification concerns the proposed section 60J(7) which provides the matters the Court of Appeal must consider in deciding whether to grant an application for PACC permission. In particular, the matter for consideration in section 60G(7)(d) is whether the PACC application has a reasonable prospect for success. I would like to confirm if the legislative intent is for para (7)(d) to set a threshold standard or is section 60G(7)(d) merely one of four factors which must be considered but which may be overriden by other considerations at the discretion of the Court of Appeal judge? Mdm Deputy Speaker, if it is meant to be a threshold standard, it could set a high bar that may prevent the applicant from even making a meritorious main application under section 60H. As such, I would like to clarify if the threshold standard required here is that of an arguable case and if this would represent the legislative intent insofar as section 60G(7)(d) is concerned?”
“While this Bill may appear to some as putting a spanner in the works for lawyers who wish to file PACCs, in my view, it serves to regulate the process better and does not close off defences not heard at trial. As a matter of principle, I do not see this Bill as hampering legal counsel who represent their clients dutifully. The regulation of the PACC process has come into focus arising from the reality of vexatious applications. When I say, "come into focus", I am not talking only about the sterile procedural aspects of PACCs. The point here is that PACCs cause profound human effects. One cannot discount the reality of these applications taking their toll on the prisoner, their spouses, their children, their parents, their extended families and their friends. If the hopes created by PACCs are reasonably achievable hopes, natural justice demands that we do not close any door to them. However, in cases of vexatious applications, which have a zero chance of success, then the hopes are wickedly false, if the lawyers are aware of that fact. While these prisoners are persons who have been convicted of crimes and who have exhausted their avenues of appeal, we must do right by them as that reflects what we want to be as a society. If I can sum it up in one word, what most of us want in the system is fairness. Fairness must be a guiding principle in scrutinising all procedures relating to the death penalty. Of course, some may argue that it is not fair at all for the state to take the life of any person. But that is not the discussion for today. The mandatory death penalty is in our statutes for now. That may change as society or circumstances change. Our purpose today is to look at a sliver of the process and consider the just and fair handling of PACCs.”
“Mr Speaker, the death penalty and the collateral criminal justice processes can be highly emotive matters, particularly after an appeal against the death penalty fails. But the varied considerations do not just include the rights of the condemned prisoner. There are other stakeholders in the criminal justice process. These include the rights of victims, the demand for fairness in the judicial system and the desire that Singapore remains safe for all. For a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, the arguments are not academic discussions of principle but, literally, a matter of life and death. Prior to the introduction of this Bill, and after the Government indicated that it was considering introducing post-appeal procedures for capital cases, I authored an op-ed in our local press on the mandatory death penalty. One point I made was to leave the matter of late applications to the Courts and allow cost orders to be the appropriate sanction. My concern was that the legislative changes proposed would either significantly curtail or prohibit post-appeal applications. If this Bill was meant to close off the possibility of new evidence being heard or new legal arguments being made in post-appeal applications in capital cases, or PACCs, the Workers' Party would vote against this Bill. Because of the irreversibility of the death penalty, lawyers should not be unduly fettered from advancing arguments to ensure that justice is done and their clients are saved from the noose. But I note that new material in the form of evidence and legal arguments are not prohibited by the proposals before the House today. The Court of Appeal is to be empowered under the Bill to take new evidence.”
“Mr Speaker, that is an accurate rendition of what I said. But immediately after that, also, I said "not lifting the whip would deny Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) not in favour of a repeal of section 377A the opportunity to vote freely and in doing so, to also represent Singaporeans who see this issue as a matter of deep religious belief and conscience". But the Minister is not wrong when he says, even though the whip is not lifted, it is entirely true that Members can speak freely. I do not dispute that, Minister.”
“Indeed, Mr Speaker, the record will show what the context was with regard to that point on paedophilia. But I accept the Minister's reply to my second question. Thank you, Mr Speaker.”
“Likewise, Mr Speaker, I think I have made my point with regard to what Minister has said. But the issue was not about paedophilia and I agree with him I do not think anybody in Singapore would be thrilled to have a person who is a paedophile standing for elections. But the question I asked was: what is the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in general elections? I do not think that question has been answered.”
“Mr Speaker, let me take up the last point. But before that, sorry, the point of abdication and suggesting that I am saying Mr Lee Kuan Yew was dishonourable. I never used those words. I think I made the point in the context of the question that I put to the Minister. On the issue of paedophilia, let me share the specific statement that the PAP made which led me to make that point. This was the statement that was released by the PAP. "What is its agenda? A video has been posted on the Internet showing Vincent Wijeysingha participating at the forum which discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore." I do not think there is a problem with that statement. And thereafter it says, "The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age." The innuendo I think is clear. In the video, Mr Wijeysingha was introduced as being from the SDP. In addition to other comments, Wijeysingha stated, "I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps, one outcome of today's forum would be for those of us who are interested to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians." I do not have any issue with the PAP coming up and saying, "Look, what is the political agenda of a candidate?" But what is the relevance of that point on sex with boys, if not to cast aspersions on the candidate himself and to suggest that. Did he make that point? Was this a forum where this was the only issue that was discussed? So, that was intentionally included. That is my view of the statement.”
“It was about the LGBTQ question vis-à-vis the PAP's position as to whether the LGBTQ community would not be a victim of some personal attacks.”
“For the Human Organ Transplant Bill of 2009, the PAP lifted the whip so that MPs could vote based on their religious and ethical beliefs. The first generation of PAP leaders under Lee Kuan Yew did the same with the Abortion Bill of 1969, where Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself rose to deliver a speech but was absent when it came to voting. If I follow the Minister's reasoning, would it be correct to say Mr Lee Kuan Yew was abdicating his responsibilities? There would be compelling reasons to suggest that for both these Bills, public policy could have been deployed as a reason not to lift the whip – but the PAP lifted it anyway. Can the Minister please clarify the consistency or lack of consistency with regard to lifting the whip? My second question pertains to implications of the constitutional amendments for the LGBTQ+ community in the political context. With these amendments, the effect would be that the Courts are not the correct forum to determine questions of housing policies and same-sex marriage, for example. At the 2011 General Elections some 11 years ago, the sexual orientation of an Opposition candidate came into the spotlight with the PAP asking the Singapore Democratic Party to "come out of the closet" and the PAP statement on this issue pursued an innuendo that made an allusion to paedophilia. In view of the speeches made by PAP MPs over the last two days and the call for any change on the definition of marriage to be a political question, can I confirm the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in General Elections?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister – I refer to Minister Shanmugam – has mischaracterised my speech somewhat. What I said was specific to the party position in 2019 and here, there was a context. The party position, as I mentioned, was varied and divided, with no consensus as to whether section 377A should be repealed – and as I said, somewhat similar to Singapore society. I lifted the whip and did not fetter the voting rights of Members of Parliament (MPs). I did not say speaking rights. I did not fetter the voting rights of MPs. This is consistent with the party position. What has been the result arising from this debate? Six for the repeal of section 377A; three against, for reasons of conscience. The party position has now been established by way of a majority in Parliament. On the Constitution, seven for and two abstentions for the reasons the Members mentioned. All the Workers' Party MPs, apart from Mr Faisal Manap who is down with COVID-19, put their personal positions on the record. And, in my view, they behaved like a loyal Opposition, not loyal to the PAP, but loyal to Singaporeans, knowing the position of Singaporeans outside of this House. I have two clarifications for the Minister, Mr Speaker. My first question pertains to an understanding of how and why the PAP chooses to lift the whip for some Bills and not others. And I raise this because the Minister raised it in his closing address. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that the PAP did not lift the whip for this debate because section 377A is a matter of public policy. The Prime Minister, in his National Day address this year, said that not everyone is equally accepting of homosexuality and there were considerable reservations within certain religious groups.”
“Finally, and perhaps most pertinently, as we are free to share our views and propagate our beliefs, let us be thoughtful and put ourselves in the other person's shoes as we welcome conversation and even vigorous debate. But as with most difficult conversations in search of a landing point, it will be crucial to adopt a gentler tone and enlightened perspective that extends and considers the impact on broader community and society, and most fundamentally, a spirit of empathy. Mr Speaker, I support both the Penal Code and Constitution amendment Bills.”
“Some conservatives are likely to mobilise to try and stop any further expansion of LGBTQ+ rights. In view of the socially divisive nature of 377A, I would suggest three points that could help in keeping things from boiling over. I hope Singaporeans can consider these as guideposts should they deem them useful. First, any conversation must recognise that there is a distinction between public and private perspectives. Just because one group has a position on an issue does not mean it can impose that position as a public expectation on everyone else. Why? Because in Singapore, there must be a place for everyone. The public space is for all to share and where we encourage a "live and let live", "give and take" attitude towards our fellow Singaporeans. The public space is where we create conditions for all Singaporeans to succeed and certainly, not to feel marginalised. The public space is where we are tolerant of Singaporeans who are different, insofar as the law allows. Second, the fact that we are a secular society does not stop religious Singaporeans from holding views that are reflective of their religious norms and values. It is fully understandable that the faithful wish to propagate their religious convictions. There is no basis for us to feel cancelled, provided our views are not set as an expectation for all society. There must be a secular approach to politics and governance, even as we celebrate and protect the freedom of religion in Singapore. The Workers' Party cannot conceive of any other way for different groups and religious communities to live harmoniously with each other in Singapore.”
“It also represents a balancing exercise to ensure that society does not fray over the decision to repeal 377A. I hope Singaporeans who are against the repeal of 377A approach this issue – in spite of their personal beliefs and religious convictions, which I and my colleagues respect, and I suggest everyone in this House respects – through this lens of compromise and accommodation. In repealing 377A, religious Singaporeans are not asked to endorse homosexuality but instead honour the equality of all Singaporeans in the eyes of the law – that no consenting adult should be regarded as criminals because of what they do in private. Equality and justice, both stars in our flag, are plenty and bountiful. Unlike finite resources, we do not have less of either by extending it to our fellow citizens. We all gain from a more just and equal society. We can also look to some of the timeless principles shared amongst all great faiths. The blessed irony here is that religion plays a huge part in inspiring our best qualities as human beings – to be generous, to love our neighbour and to be merciful. These qualities do not weaken but strengthen our faith. Wherever you stand on this decision, I hope Singaporeans approach our LGBTQ+ community, who are a small minority of the population, like they are anywhere in the world, with these qualities in mind. More than ever, with the impending repeal of 377A, Singaporeans on all sides must come together in good faith and mutual trust to not let this issue further tear our social fabric. I am certain the decision of this House is not a panacea that repairs the tension between camps. We should anticipate that new battle lines will be drawn. For the LGBTQ+ community, the march towards greater equality has not ended.”
“An important reality is that the political compromise in place since 2007 undermined the sense of belonging of Singapore's LGBTQ+ community. Though unenforced, one should not underestimate its symbolic message that they are outsiders. Additionally, this so-called compromise is not binding on future governments who could choose to enforce the law. Yet, repealing 377A will no doubt cause anxiety, if not outrage, amongst Singaporeans who believe that our laws must also reflect cultural or religious attitudes towards homosexuality. There are Singaporeans who see this as an erosion of the family as a basic unit of Singapore society. The reality of our political culture, which leans towards conservatism on social issues, is that such concerns cannot be summarily ignored or dismissed. In the main, the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General appears to have precipitated the Government's decision to repeal 377A. But the stark reality before this House and Singaporeans today is that there were never any good options before the Government that could please everybody with regard to managing the tensions of 377A. Keeping to the status quo indefinitely would only shine an ever brighter spotlight on the issue, particularly as social mores regionally and locally continue a steady shift towards greater acceptance and accommodation of LGBTQ+ individuals. Like many Singaporeans, I could understand why the uneasy compromise set out by the Prime Minister in 2007 was deemed to be a midpoint that would keep any excessive social cleavage in check. Likewise, I see the decision to protect marriage from constitutional challenge as an institution between man and woman only, through a very narrow lens.”
“I would also like to reiterate that defending the Singaporean family also means doing more to protect its different forms, including families with single, widowed and divorced mothers and fathers. We must do more to help caregivers who perform the labour of caring for aged parents and those with special needs. What the repeal of 377A certainly does not signal is Singapore becoming a more liberal or permissive society. What it does is make room in our shared public space for members of our common Singaporean family to not be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. Religious Singaporeans are free to maintain their beliefs about homosexuality, but this should not interfere with what is legal in our public sphere. Likewise, supporters of the repeal have no business interfering with the private beliefs of religious Singaporeans. In any secular society, sin and crime are separate categories. They may sometimes align. For example, we have laws prohibiting crimes such as murder that are also considered wrong in many belief systems. But we also do not outlaw many activities considered sinful in some religious communities. Consuming alcohol and pork are legal but not permissible to Muslims. There are also no laws against eating meat, though this is not an option for Jains and some Hindus and Buddhists. One may argue that 377A is much more complex, that not regulating sexual practices has greater social consequences. But let us remember that when section 377A of the Penal Code was amended in 2007, it decriminalised other sex acts that some still find unorthodox. In singling homosexuality between men in particular, the decision to keep 377A appears to the LGBTQ+ community and not a small number of Singaporeans, to be unjust and unequal.”
“The depth of the impasse in Singapore society at that time was stark and encapsulated somewhat in a panel discussion between Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Prof Tommy Koh on the Institute of Policy Studies' 30th anniversary in late 2018. Prof Koh said, "A mutual friend of ours was recently invited by one of our religious organisations to speak at a conference on a secular topic. He accepted, prepared the paper and then he was disinvited. Why was he disinvited? Because he signed the petition to repeal 377A." Such has been the divisiveness over 377A. In my 2019 speech, I said that the LGBTQ+ community should not be exploited for political points. At that time, I believe there was more to consider than deciding which was the right side in this matter, particularly in a society which generally eschews from posting open and frank conversations on difficult matters in the public realm. Against this political culture and background, the Workers' Party neither took up the cause of LGBTQ+ rights, nor stood against it. I still believe that had the Workers' Party openly supported a repeal of 377A, it would not have been good for Singapore politics. More crucially, it would have not served the interest of the LGBTQ+ community. On issues of great social division and contending values, we do not need politicians to be seen as siding with particular groups. From my vantage point as the Leader of the Opposition, my personal belief is that the repeal of 377A does not in any way signal the state's hostility towards the family unit or religious freedom. Rest assured, the family remains and, I dare say, will always be at the core of our social norms.”
“Not lifting the whip would deny Workers' Party MPs not in favour of a repeal of 377A the opportunity to vote freely and in doing so, to also represent Singaporeans who see this issue as a matter of deep religious belief and conscience. So, I have decided to lift the whip for the Workers' Party MPs. In doing so, I have also asked all who will speak to carefully reflect on the position they take and to envision a set of principles or perspectives from which society as a whole, with its different views, can move forward. That is the challenge. We know society is divided on 377A. How can we mitigate this and contribute to lowering temperatures and ensuring Singapore is a home for everyone? For the record, Mr Speaker, both MPs Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap and Chua Kheng Wee Louis are not present for this debate as they are COVID-19 positive. Mr Faisal disagrees with the repeal of 377A as a matter of religion and conscience while Mr Chua agrees to the repeal. The other Workers' Party MPs will state their positions on the matter in the course of their speeches. Mr Speaker, since 2007, the Government has settled on what was called an uneasy compromise – that 377A would be kept on the books but not enforced. In 2019, in my first term as Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, I stated the Workers' Party's position on 377A in a speech to the National University of Singapore Political Association. The party position I advanced was similar to that of Singapore as a whole – it was varied and diverse, with no consensus as to whether 377A should be repealed.”
“Mr Speaker, beyond the bread-and-butter matters of economics and material well-being, Singaporeans must occasionally confront issues that concern our collective values – how we see each other as a citizen community and what kind of place we want Singapore to be. Section 377A of the Penal Code – which I will henceforth refer to as 377A – that criminalises homosexual conduct in private, is such an issue. For some Singaporeans, it is a very difficult subject. For others, especially younger Singaporeans, they wonder why it has to be a difficult subject and why people of a different sexual orientation cannot be treated as equal Singaporeans. In recent years, the issue has caused growing tensions between groups who identify themselves for and against the repeal of section 377A. Singaporeans have formed organisations and groups on the issue. At the personal level, the conversations can be uncomfortable and discussing the subject without measure and consideration can quickly pull people apart. Speaking in their individual capacities, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) have different views on the repeal of section 377A. In normal circumstances, I would not lift the whip for Parliamentary debates, given the party political structure that overlays elected MPs in this House. However, 377A is unique in that it is conceived through a religious lens by many in Singapore, in addition to being a matter of conscience for a no less significant number. The People's Action Party has announced that it is not lifting the whip for this debate. Given the very public opinion on the impending repeal of 377A, there is a risk that the democratic value of the Parliament could be diluted if the views of Singaporeans on this subject are not adequately ventilated in the House.”
“Just to respond to the Leader of the House, thank you for the clarification. There was no intention to give the Government very little time to respond. I think this is a novel process insofar as at least my time in the House is concerned. I do not think such an amendment has come up. I think the intention was to make sure we filed on time as per the Standing Order, which we did. And thereafter, on the Saturday, after Mr Perera received the note from the Clerk of Parliament, I think he followed up with the Clerk of Parliament with a list of questions as to procedure and so forth. So, there was no intention to try and give the Government very little time to respond or anything of that sort. I just thought I ought to put that on the record.”
“Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when a Member asks a question, the other Member sits down; question is answered, vice versa. There is some decorum between both parties.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question on the situation at KKH. The Minister spoke about the heavy demand on beds there. Does the Minister have some indication as to when that demand is likely to taper or is it a case of having to stand up more beds in KKH over time?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Workers' Party would like to record our dissent, please.”
“Sir, just a quick question. What is the backlog waiting time now for rental flat allocation? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for his question. As we shared in the answer to the September Parliamentary Question, the waiting time is about eight months.”
“I understand. So, just to be clear, the question the Minister is asking me to file another question for, is the reasons why HDB does not publish the affordability index for mature BTO estates? Okay, I will do so. For the first question, I restate my position that because we have now delinked BTO prices, the value of the subsidy becomes more important, particularly, with resale prices going up. On the earlier question, which I believe was directed at Mr Leong Mun Wai's Questions Nos 3 and 4, just for clarification and my understanding about how land is booked in the reserves, and I am looking at this from the perspective of reclaimed land: Singapore's total land area has grown by 2.45 square kilometres per year for 60 years – from 851 square kilometres in 1962 to 728 square kilometres in 2020. The state can reclaim land and draw on the reserves for land reclamation activities and expenses – I think Minister also alluded to that in her reply. My two supplementary questions are as follows. I would like to ask the Minister, does the value of new land that has been reclaimed go into current reserves; and, in connection with this, is it based on the actual cost of reclamation or the value of new land based on the chief valuers' land betterment charge (LBC) tables? That is the first supplementary question. The second one is, for land that has been reclaimed years prior, is the revaluation for marking to market done once a year based on the annual LBC rates, or once every six months based on the six-monthly LBC rates, or is the value of the land in past reserves held at the cost of land reclamation until it is sold to the Government for specific use?”
“The second supplementary question pertains to disclosing the affordability index for mature estates. That is the supplementary question. But the Minister did not answer the second limb of the first supplementary question. So, the second limb, the Minister replied for PLH. I take Minister's answer, even though I disagree with it, of course. The second question was with regard to the delinking of BTO prices as a reason to reveal the subsidy in full.”
“Sorry, is Minister referring to the second supplementary question or the second limb of the first supplementary question?”