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 15 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, for the same reason I mentioned with regard to the original Motion number one, paragraph 2(c), while Mr Faisal Manap and myself are prepared to be referred to the Public Prosecutor, we do not agree with this particular paragraph because the basis of the referral to the Public Prosecutor arises from the findings of the Committee of Privileges and we reject the allegations that we told untruths.”
“Mr Speaker, can I request that the dissent of the WP MPs be recorded.”
“Mr Speaker, rather than standing up and sitting down, may I be allowed to just stand at the rostrum?”
“The one that covers the fine of $25,000? Yes, no objection.”
“That is correct. Paragraph 2(a), no objection.”
“Leader, could you put that question again?”
“That is correct. But an important caveat is as what I mentioned about Mr Faisal Manap and myself. We are prepared to be referred to the Public Prosecutor.”
“Mr Speaker, just to confirm what Leader of the House is suggesting. Indeed, for Motion number one, with regard to 2(a) and 2(b), we will be voting in favour. And then for 2(c), indeed, as Leader said that implicit in that, we are going to vote no, and she is right. Implicit in that is an acknowledgement that our actions somehow mitigate the quantum. For the very same reason, Leader of the House is right, Mr Faisal Manap and myself have no objections to being referred to the Public Prosecutor. But – and this is a big "but" – we will still vote no to Motion number two, because in the same way it is implicit in Motion number one, 2(c), it is also implicit in the second paragraph of Motion number two that the basis of the referral to the PP arises from evidence uncovered at the COP; and we reject those findings. So, I hope that is clear.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, but I think he is doing his prayers now.”
“Speaker, can I confirm whether those documents will be returned to me?”
“Speaker, it still does not answer the point that I brought up in my speech about the contemporaneous evidence. The fact of the matter is, the COP relies on contemporaneous evidence and puts a high probative value on it in certain cases, but Mr Desmond Lee just read out a narration of text messages between Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan, which is on the record, and my point is, I have submitted documents to the COP, which are not on the record. And there is an important difference there. If the Committee was minded to send us a summons to produce, we produced documents. I have also raised other examples in my speech, I am not going in my speech, I did not go into it, to the detail that I would have wanted because there is a recommendation to refer the matter to the PP. We are always told that it is important, when a matter is under investigation, let us not comment too much. I think I should be given that right as well. But Prime Minister has gone one step further and said: "Go to trial!" I mean, that is certainly Prime Minister's view. I certainly expect a fair hearing. But my point still comes back to the point I made in my speech and I do not believe Mr Desmond Lee's clarification deals with it. What I would request is for the Committee to return all those documents to me. I made a request to Speaker on Friday that all that evidence which I have submitted, including the cover letter, is returned to me. I do not believe I mentioned cover letter, but I mentioned documents and the cover letter is part of it. And I hope this will be done, because that is not in the Committee of Privileges' Report.”
“Mr Speaker, indeed, the word is not in the Committee Report. And I mentioned earlier that the word "weaponised" was my characterisation of what I made of that particular paragraph. Indeed, the word is also used publicly. I cannot remember whether I read this specifically, but Rice Media has an article which says: "Now that the claims on Raeesah Khan's mental health have been refuted, how do you feel about weaponising an individual's mental health in an investigation?" So, generally, that was my characterisation of what I saw the COP Report was doing and, hence, the choice of my usage of the word "weaponised". I did not refer in my speech to saying that the Report specifically used the word "weaponised". I said, "the most egregious is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation for Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition". I hope that clarifies.”
“Mr Speaker, just a few very brief points in response to the Prime Minister. I agree with the Prime Minister in the main with regard to the sort of political system we want in our country: values of trust, honesty. I do not disagree with the Prime Minister. My second point is with regard to his request to the House to vote in favour of both Motions. As I explained in my speech, the reasons why we are objecting, particularly to the First Motion, is with regard to limb 2(c). And the understanding behind limb 2(c) is that there is something for which Ms Raeesah Khan's fine, the quantum of the fine is what it is because the assumption is the COP has accepted that there is a mitigatory point to be made. We disagree with that because that is basically saying that we admit that we have told a lie to the Committee. And we disagree, certainly. And for the same reason, we have to disagree with the Second Motion. But as I made it clear in my speech, I am prepared to clear my name. And as a result, I will not be objecting to this House resolving to refer this matter to the Public Prosecutor. I have made the point that I will strive to clear my name not once, but I believe twice: first was in the introduction of my speech; and secondly, in the conclusion. And this is what I said, "Should Parliament resolve to adopt the Motion, I intend to clear my name and will fully cooperate with the Public Prosecutor."”
“Mr Speaker, I looked at how the COP Report had put together that particular paragraph regarding Ms Khan's mental health condition. And this was the word that occurred to me as to what the COP was trying to do.”
“Mr Speaker, I just said I will have to check that. Let me have a look at it. I think it is a fair question. If, indeed, that word was not used and it was not right for me to use it, I am happy to withdraw it. But let me just, at least, look at the Report.”
“Mr Speaker, I think the Prime Minister can go ahead with his speech. I will try and get the information as soon as possible. But I think, generally speaking, the nature of the way my decision to bring up Ms Khan's condition was expressed in my speech for three reasons. I brought up those three reasons. I think it is incontrovertible that the COP used very uncharitable, I would even say unparliamentary, words to describe what I did. So, my speech sought to explain why I felt I was legitimate in raising the matter of Ms Khan's condition.”
“Mr Speaker, let me have a look at the Report. It is in my folder; I will reply to that.”
“Once again, this evidence is left out from the COP Report. For the record, Ms Loh's contemporaneous reply upon receiving my message was: "I see. Is there something you need me to do?"”
“Such documentary evidence placed before the COP would show that I had good reasons for concluding that loyalty to Ms Khan was a consideration for her closest allies. Ms Loh's perspective of the gravity of what Ms Khan did is one of those good reasons. Once again, such evidence does not appear to have been considered by the COP. I can only speculate why. Could it be to strategically drive a wedge and disunite the Workers' Party and show that its leaders recklessly cast aspersions on their own members? And in making the point, the COP Report carefully omits the only character references I made in reference to Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. And what did I say? I quote, that "they are decent, good people and have done a lot for the party". I still hold that view. Finally, Mr Speaker, the COP's case at its highest relies on one pillar – it believes Ms Khan's evidence that she had been told to take her lie to the grave. This belief rests on an uncorroborated piece of evidence, a WhatsApp text originating from Ms Khan herself. The COP deems the fact of its contemporaneousness to be critical in coming to its conclusion. The COP does not question Ms Khan's credibility even though she was the one who lied in this House, by her own admission, and even though she also lied when she first communicated with me about this matter. So, if contemporaneous evidence is indeed central, one would expect the COP Report to exhibit a fidelity to such evidence. But it does not. For example, at paragraph 93 of the Report, it makes the case that Ms Loh was surprised the DP was set up and that it advances Mr Nathan's view that the DP was self-serving. However, what were Ms Loh's and Mr Nathan's contemporaneous views on the DP when it was set up? I submitted my WhatsApp texts with both of them to the COP.”
“If the COP was indeed a fact-finding body, should I not have raised the matter of Ms Khan possibly labouring under a condition to the COP? In my evidence to the COP, I registered the point that the matter was raised because it covered issues of proportionality and culpability. I believe that Ms Khan should not be excessively punished for a condition she could be labouring under and the COP ought to see it as a mitigatory point in her favour. This evidence of mine, supported by the COP's Minutes of Evidence on culpability and proportionality, is ignored by the COP. So, I reject this assertion that in raising the matter of Ms Khan's mental health to a fact-finding body with a view to consider an appropriate punishment, I had somehow smeared her, or worse, somehow cast aspersions on those with mental health conditions. Another point I strongly disagree with the COP is how my evidence was characterised with regard to Ms Loh Pei Ying and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan's representations in antagonistic terms. I shared my view with the COP that in my opinion, loyalty to Ms Khan was an operative consideration on the minds of Ms Loh and Mr Nathan. Ms Khan, in her own WhatsApp text to me on 22 November at Annex C-29, states that she would respect any decision the Disciplinary Panel (DP) makes, even if it is to resign. In my DP notes of 25 November covering the meeting with Ms Loh and Mr Nathan which, again, was submitted to the COP, Ms Loh made it clear that Ms Khan's resignation should not be on the cards because, in her view, what she did in Parliament was not serious and it was not as if Ms Khan had "laundered money". I believe many would take a different view that telling untruths in Parliament is serious.”
“That said, I will discuss with my party colleagues how, as an organisation and political party, we can handle such matters better while taking into account how delicate they are. Sir, on to my brief comments on the COP Report. For today, the principal point I will make is the disregard of evidence I submitted to the Committee. At minimum, I would have expected a listing of all the documents my fellow Workers' Party colleagues and I submitted to the Committee to be included in the COP Report, to indicate that they were actively considered in deliberations. I can only assume they were not considered, despite my colleagues and I being served with a summons to produce. There are objective documents that I submitted to the Committee which raised serious doubts about the eventual findings reached in the Report, including the unparliamentary language used at various places, which is not supported by evidence. The most egregious, in my mind, is the conclusion that in seeking a psychiatric evaluation from Ms Khan, I had somehow weaponised her condition. The following points need to be considered as to why I mentioned the psychiatric evaluation. First, the notes of the Workers' Party Disciplinary Panel, or DP, which was submitted to the COP show that Ms Khan tendered on her own accord, documents which revealed that she was the patient of a psychotherapist who had referred her to a psychiatrist. Second, on 29 November, Ms Khan voluntarily shared with the DP that she suffered from dissociation. Once again, the relevant DP notes were forwarded to the COP. And third, I was asked an open question by the COP as to why Ms Khan would make certain statements. I attempted to give a fair answer in line with what Ms Khan herself had revealed.”
“The most difficult aspect of this episode for me personally, and most certainly something that I have reflected on, is the approach to take when a fellow MP tells you, first, she is a rape victim; and second, how this episode caused an untruth to be told in Parliament. From the moment I learned after the August Sitting that Ms Khan had lied in Parliament, there was no doubt in my mind that she would have to confess in Parliament that she had lied and that she would have to apologise for it in this House. I have shared publicly that the matter of the lie was something for Ms Khan to explain in Parliament. My firm belief is that a Member of Parliament must be accountable in Parliament for what they say in Parliament. In addition, I considered that whenever she confessed, Ms Khan would have to explain her reason for telling her lie. I did not want Ms Khan's parents or loved ones to be caught by surprise before she had a chance to speak with them. Looking back though, I gave Ms Khan too much time to settle herself before closing this issue with her. Between 8 August and 30 September, I should have been proactive and checked where she was in addressing the matter with her family. That omission is mine alone. I acknowledged the same to the COP in my evidence. However, I will continue to be as sympathetic to anyone who shares such deeply personal details with me. My instinct, even today, would be to keep the information of the sexual assault to myself, or to a very small group of trusted individuals, given its highly personal and sensitive nature. I would allow such a person space to deal with the matter. I still believe that it was right that the clarification was made in Parliament rather than out of it.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been about 25 years since a Committee of Privileges (COP) Report has been tabled in this House. When seen as a whole, the COP's processes and the Report before Parliament leave many questions, gaps and omissions and, by extension, suggest political partisanship. A key question is: who did this House commit to the COP? Raeesah Khan or the Workers’ Party leadership? The COP did not appear to want to get to the bottom of why Ms Khan lied in Parliament nor why she had a propensity to lie with respect to her anecdote, both in and out of this House. The fact that she had concocted a lie to bolster her anecdote in Parliament was not balanced against her evidence to the COP. What took centre stage instead was her uncorroborated testimony that she was instructed to take her lie to the grave by the Workers' Party leadership, a fabrication which never came out from any witness at the COP except Ms Raeesah Khan herself. I reject this finding completely. At no time did I instruct Ms Khan to hide the truth. At the meeting on August 8, none of the three Workers' Party leaders told Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave. I will speak on two main areas before concluding with a section on candidate selection in the Workers' Party. First, I will reflect on my judgement with respect to Ms Khan's reasons for lying in Parliament, arising from my meeting with her on 8 August. Second, I will raise some broad points about the selective nature of how the COP Report dealt with the evidence before it. However, as I intend to clear my name and cooperate with the Public Prosecutor, my comments on the COP Report will be limited in scope.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Just to clarify with the Minister. The Minister shared that the haemorrhage in 2021 with respect to Public Service officers on the MX scheme of service was 9.9%. Can I just confirm, Minister, is this figure similar for Public Service officers in the ICT sector or is the percentage for that unique sector far higher than the 9.9% that Minister shared? My second question pertains to the ICT sector. We all know, on the basis of what has happened over the last few years with regard to cybersecurity weaknesses and digitalisation being an important prong for the Government, that the need for ICT talent would be either increasing or certainly going to be a far, far more important aspect of the Public Service than it ever has been. Coming back to my question, the Minister has shared that the demand in the private sector for ICT talent is very hot. Indeed, that is true. The salaries are very high. What strategies does the Government have in mind to, in the Minister's words, attract the public sector's fair share of ICT talent, going forward?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, with close to $1 billion of Government funding for SMT committed over the next five years, how will the Government assure Singaporeans that SMT's content will not be tainted by allegations of political interference?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question as a follow-up to my Parliamentary Question, which is listed as Question No 5 in the Order Paper. What vis-à-vis the Framework Agreement is the dispute resolution clause in the event either Singapore or Indonesia cannot come to an agreement after the end of the 25-year period?”
“Thank you for that. I asked because when a Personal Explanation is made under Standing Order 25, you would actually receive the whole statement in full. So, the assumption was when you mentioned "Personal Explanation", you would have had sight of what Mr Leong was going to say. That is the only reason I am asking the question.”
“I understand. I am asking you, Sir, whether he followed the procedure under the Standing Orders?”
“Yes, Sir, but I understand that it was on the basis of a Personal Explanation which is how you introduced the subject which Mr Leong then started to speak about. Can I confirm that Mr Leong put in a request under Standing Order 25 for a Personal Explanation? Can I confirm that?”
“Mr Speaker, can I have some time, please, to just understand. It is a point of order. I understand it started with a request for a Personal Explanation. Am I right to say that?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two questions for the Minister of State Ms Low Yen Ling. I do thank her for her reply, which essentially was almost in pari materia vis-à-vis the measures to mitigate increasing cost of living with Minister Chan Chun Sing's 2018 Parliamentary reply. My two questions pertain to two points of departure, arising from the supplementary questions that came up just now. One was a point that was made about anti-profiteering and Minister of State suggested that the Government looked very closely, for example, at the price of masks that were going up. Minister Chan, a few years ago, took a different approach, although it was with regard to a different item. It was with regard to coffee, coffee in the coffee shops. The approach then was relying on crowdsourcing platforms to address price increases, taking a step away from anti-profiteering-type committees. In view of the situation today, given the answer that Minister of State has shared, is the Government veering towards the formation of anti-profiteering committees as a way to track prices and how they affect our people on the ground? The second question again is a pick-up from what Minister Chan shared as a way to combat inflation and this is in the case of businesses. This involved looking at meaningful ways and effective ways to lower regulatory costs, which include improving regulatory efficiencies, simplifying processes and removing unnecessary licences. I was listening to Minister of State's reply from the supplementary question asked by Member Ms Jessica Tan. In that regard, what has been the Government's progress on lowering regulatory costs for businesses as a way for combating inflation?”
“Just a very short follow-through on that: with regard to the point made by the Minister for Health on the 270 days that are required, the limit before you take a booster and then to be recognised still as being vaccinated, would there be some flexibility to allow Novavax at least to get on this programme and to allow more individuals to then be considered fully vaccinated?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The first pertains to a subject I believe that was covered both by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education. This concerns the apprehension some parents have over the administration of mRNA vaccines for their children. These parents anecdotally are not anti-vax per se. Some of them may have taken the mRNA vaccine on their own, but the concern is really a visceral one, that is, about the long-term effects, the fact that this vaccine is referred for emergency approvals and so forth, even though I think some have been granted FDA approval, Pfizer-BioNTech specifically. To that extent, will the Ministry of Health (MOH) allow such parents to wait until non-mRNA traditional protein-based vaccines are approved for their children's inoculation, so as to give them more choices and to assuage their concerns? The second question follows. I understand that one such non-mRNA vaccine company, Novavax, submitted data for approval under Singapore's Pandemic Special Access Route (PSAR) on 22 November. The Director of Medical Services confirmed a few days ago, on 5 January, that he was very optimistic Novavax would be authorised as a non-mRNA booster. My question is, if Novavax or any other non-mRNA vaccine maker has submitted data for the authorisation for use for children above the age of 12, and, if so, when can these vaccines be expected to be introduced in the National Vaccination Programme?”
“I have one supplementary question for the Minister. Minister spoke about the pilot, which saw an increase in numbers from 500 to 3,000. Can the Minister share with the House what were the considerations that determined that number 3,000? Why not 2,000 or 4,000, because that will give the public and those who are looking at this issue more closely some ideas as to when further opening can potentially take place or, at the very least, when certain foreign workers who may need a little bit more assistance can be attended to by the relevant agencies and individuals?”
“So, I hope there could be some clarity provided insofar as what is holding the Government back on this number, on opening up at least for dining for up to five individuals. My third question really – and this is the last one, Mr Speaker – follows up on the numbers the Senior Minister of State shared with regard to the resignations in the healthcare system. One thousand five hundred for the first half of 2021 and I believe an additional 500 were foreign healthcare professionals. Can I just confirm what have been the recruitment numbers over the same period? The Senior Minister of State said in his Statement that the recruitment of healthcare workers from overseas is continuing. So, it will be helpful to have the numbers that are coming on board as well and not just the numbers that are leaving.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for the Statement on ICU capacity. I would like to refer to a report which is found on the SingHealth website. It is carrying a Straits Times article on ICU capacity. This is dated 13 August and I think this number has been quoted by individuals online as well as when the Minister for Health said that up to 1,000 ICU beds can be made available for critically ill COVID-19 patients, if needed. I think what the numbers suggest, and what the numbers we have now insofar as ICU capacity is concerned, is that there is yet sufficient potential for upscaling the number of ICU beds. Of course, the assumption being that this remark that was made on 13 August refers both to the bed itself, the ancillary equipment needed and the manpower needed to manage 1,000 beds. Sir, I would just like to ask a question pertaining to this number of 1,000. Is this still the operating parameter or have things changed quite significantly? The second point is somewhat connected but it is with regard to the measures introduced vis-a-vis the Stabilisation Phase. I think there has been some pushback in terms of retaining the number of two individuals in a dining capacity. There is significant public feedback that this should be increased to five, especially for vaccinated individuals, particularly since the Government is also opening up more Vaccinated Travel Lanes (VTLs) and lifting travel bans. At least, for the South Asian group of countries, this was lifted very recently. So, there is a view that cannot quite connect why dining capacity cannot be opened up in view of the number of vaccinated individuals who actually are not imposing on the ICU capacity as much as non-vaccinated individuals.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply to my Parliamentary Question (PQ). I have a question pertaining to MOM's ACE Group, which was a new division set up last year, taking over from the inter-agency task force, and it pertains to the deployment of forward assurance and support teams. It would appear from the Senior Minister of State's chronology that, between 10 and 12 October, there were gaps. Can I seek confirmation from the Senior Minister of State as to the manpower situation within ACE itself, whether there are enough individuals and teams to cover not just this particular dormitory but the vast number of dormitories in Singapore? My second question pertains to the first part of what the Senior Minister of State shared with regard to the Dormitory Recovery Programme. I would like to seek an update from the Senior Minister of State as to what is the situation with the various pilots that I believe were launched to allow workers to reintegrate into the public space and whether this can actually be moved along in a more deliberate manner. I understand from individuals in HealthServe that mental health concerns are becoming more noteworthy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to call for a Division.”
“No, Sir, I would like to call for a Division. Thank you.”
“Sir, I would like to call for a Division, please.”
“I thank the Minister and Minister of State Desmond Tan. Minister, I have heard you carefully. On the first point about Second Minister Josephine Teo, I stick to my position that I do not believe it was a misreading. Minister has a different view. I think I can leave that at that. The point about judicial review, again, that reflection of how one's views changes over time is not something that I take lightly. I think all of us go through such a catharsis in our lives as we build up a crucible of experience. But I would like to ask whether the Ministry considered judicial review in the usual sense and not limited judicial review. Why was it that illegality and irrationality were deemed, that they ought not to play a part in this Bill. It is not the ISA. We are talking of a different sort of threat. Yes, it could be "ISA-like". I would concede that point. But we are only asking the Court to just look at the lawfulness of a decision. Nobody is asking the Court to substitute the Minister's decision. And this, I believe is an important matter because we cannot use the experience of having legislation with ouster clauses to justify new legislation with ouster clauses. So, I think each legislation must be unpacked to why judicial review has to be limited.”
“At the baseline, I believe it says you cannot accept impermissible donations. I believe the Bill in clause 55 tells you what a permissible donor is. Are we to read that in the opposite, as in everybody who is out of that range is an impermissible donor? Because this has knock-on implications for other arguments that the Government and other Members of Parliament have made. If you work with climate activists, for example, there is an international solidarity movement on certain issues. How will this be addressed and considered by FICA? This, I hope explains Mr Gerald Giam's amendments for clause 8(f) and (g), as to how do we balance this exercise. Because if you compare clause 8(a) to (e), there is a very clear target – legislature, presidential counsels, trying to change the laws – but the last two limbs are far more broad and that also explains why the Workers' Party proposed additional oversight arrangements.”
“I think the answer is yes and that is a fundamental difference. Notwithstanding this, Minister makes the point about national security and so forth, which is why the Workers' Party Members have proposed potential in-camera hearings and files can be sealed after that as well. My third clarification, Sir, is a bit more specific and this pertains to designated PSPs. I am not sure it is appropriate for me to direct this question at Minister because it would probably be more appropriately directed at the other office holders in MHA who spoke on the Bill and this is with regard to designated PSPs. I will give an example, a hypothetical. Let us assume there is a cause-based, a single cause-based NGO in Singapore. Their cause is, they are very aghast at the idea of foreign workers being transported at the back of hard-top lorries. This is their single cause, they are all Singapore members and they regularly write to their Members of Parliament and encourage their Members of Parliament to bring this issue up in Parliament. Let us assume this NGO receives foreign funding. It receives foreign funding from another International Organisation, whose main object is that they seek to ensure and uphold the human rights of foreign workers all over the world. They are prepared to extend funding to anyone. Now, one reading of FICA, by virtue of a clause 8(f) and (g) and even (e) perhaps, will suggest that, this Singapore NGO could be classified as a Politically Significant Entity (PSE). My question is, will such a PSE be barred at the first instance, at the baseline, from continuing to accept foreign funding. That means will the Competent Authority say, "No, sorry, you cannot receive this funding." Because, I know under stepped-up countermeasures, you can do that.”
“We cannot guarantee that the future government will comprise of honourable men." Minister then goes on, "An argument, therefore, can be made out that there must be checks and balances within the system. The Minister in taking his decision can arguably be made to realise that if his decision is so unreasonable that one look at the facts will show that he could never have considered the detainee a threat, then his decision should be reversed by the Courts." Insofar as FICA is concerned and as it is drafted with the limited judicial review clause, what we are taking away is precisely what the Minister was warning about in 1989. Illegality, irrationality are not grounds for judicial review consideration in this Bill, only procedural impropriety. And I was listening very carefully to the other People's Action Party (PAP) Members who spoke and I compared the speeches of those Members with the PAP Members who spoke in 1989. The Minister was not the only one who was concerned about an appeals mechanism or other appeals mechanism and that there be appropriate checks and balances. There were a few other PAP Members. I am not going to go through the entire debate, but I think the point is, the WP does not understand at the very base level, why it has to be limited judicial review in this case. I think Minister gave some reasons and the Minister referred to leaks – that there could be leaks in the system, when you go to Court. Sir, I do not mean to just facetiously give a counter response, but there could be leaks in the reviewing tribunal as well. So, that question, I think if you ask me on balance, should a Court at least look into and review the decision of the Minister? Should judicial review be allowed to be captured in its entirety by a Court of Law?”
“Let me refer to it and try to capture the spirit of the WP's approaches to oversight mechanisms the way we see them vis-à-vis this Bill. I refer to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. A debate that took place on the 25 of January 1989 and it also dealt with, the main debate also dealt with Internal Security Act (ISA) (Amendment) Bill, which sought to abolish appeal to the Privy Council in case of review of ISA cases. Then, Minister K Shanmugam, as a backbencher said the following and I would start with the reference to Chng Suan Tze and Minister said, "It will be useful to consider exactly what the Court of Appeal said. It did not say that it can itself decide whether or not the detainee posed a threat. The Court said that it can consider, within broad parameters, whether or not there was any ground at all for the detention. It will set aside the detention only if there were absolutely no grounds for the detention, that is, it takes the view that no one in his right mind could possibly have concluded that the detainee posed any threat to national security. Otherwise, it will not interfere with the Minister's decision. Sir, the amendments will deny the Courts that power. This Government believes it has never abused the ISA and there is nothing to fear. The Government works on the basis that the persons in Government should be upright, moral and only do what is good for the country. Thus, the people have nothing to fear, despite the powers that the Government has. These powers will never be abused because they are so effective, they help the Government govern effectively for the greater good of all. So, that has worked." And Minister says this, "But can we be sure that down the road, the situation will be the same?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for closing speech. I have three clarifications. I will start with the first which covers the Second Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Josephine Teo's comments at this year's Committee of Supply. Sir, I do not believe I misread that speech. Mr Christopher de Souza filed a cut, asking MHA what it would do to deter foreign interference in our domestic affairs. Minister replies, quite an extensive reply. It goes on for about a page, and right at the end, she says, "Given the experience of other countries, we need to consider further measures". This is post-Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods' findings, post some other seminars that have been referred to. And she says, "We need to consider further measures to guard against foreign subversion, what levels of transparency, support, leadership are appropriate for home and the public has to play a big part in this to shape proposals and to give safeguards the strongest support". It seems to me that it is not a misunderstanding of this but it is probably more accurate to say that, that does not seem to be an answer as to why the Bill could not be put before public consultation, like other Bills are. This is an omission for which I do not think we have heard any responses yet. The second point pertains to the role of the Courts, which I think is the fundamental disagreement between the Government and the Workers' Party (WP)'s position is the oversight mechanism. I think there is scope to discuss some of the other points and I think Minister has agreed with some of our amendments but Minister referred to the case, the 1988 case of Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one question for the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai and that pertains to the reference he made in his speech about his earlier Adjournment Motion on the sunlight of scrutiny and I will repeat the quotation where the hon Member says, "It is important for each generation of political leaders and people to find their own equilibrium of what our people would accept without question, under what circumstances and towards what ends." Would the Member not agree that the Bill in question introduces an ouster clause. It is a new piece of legislation and this is one more piece of legislation for which we have an ouster course. And would the Member also not agree that there has been no equilibrium sought from the people by virtue of an absence of public consultation as to whether this ouster clause has been considered by the public?”
“That is why the four Workers' Party Members of Parliament have filed amendments to this Bill. Mr Speaker, let me conclude. Public feedback should have been sought on this Bill. The Government failed to do so and does not appear minded to postpone this debate. There is an opportunity to commit the Bill to a Select Committee for public input and to review oversight mechanisms, amongst others. The Government should not close the door on this. What is more perplexing is that we know that the Government had been mulling the introduction of this Bill for many months. Why was it so difficult to undertake a period of public consultation before it was tabled for First Reading? The Government must also take immediate steps to implement non-legislative measures to tackle foreign interference, such as education and engagement of the public. Hopefully, the Government will introduce such measures with the same alacrity with which it introduced this Bill. Finally, the most critical issue today is the high level of Executive power introduced by this Bill, which demands that there must be strong oversight mechanisms, namely, our Courts. I call on the Members of this House to seriously consider the proposed amendments and ask yourself whether you would want these amendments in place if the PAP was not in power. The amendments are in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans, regardless of who is in charge now or in the future. Say "Aye" to all the 44 amendments proposed by the Workers' Party.”
“Sir, the Government has placed such a high priority on combating foreign interference to the extent of introducing a Bill which, in some important ways, has no substantive judicial safeguards. But what does it say about the Government when it takes an arguably unclear approach to non-legislative responses? Surely, non-legislative responses that promote a more participatory and educated citizenry would inoculate the population in a whole-of-society way far better against foreign interference. This is an area I believe the Government needs to look into in a deliberate fashion across all levels of society. It is my argument that the Government needs to work with the public in a far more participative way so as to strengthen the resolve of the population against foreign interference. This apparent lack of integration of legislative and non-legislative measures to address foreign interference, in my view, is a critical omission in our public discourse on this subject. The conclusion of the RSIS paper is prescient insofar as the discussions we have undertaken today and, more importantly, the public response to this Bill. I quote the RSIS paper, "The manner of application of these countermeasures must be fair and necessary both in terms of process and perception without perpetuating the image of an Orwellian state. Singapore must not appear to be taking sides in geopolitical rivalries or using foreign interference as a pretext to clamp down on local political discourse and responsible activism. Ultimately, Singapore's survival depends on both its foreign policy principle of neutrality and reputation of openness to global trade, talent, investment and ideas." As things stand, particularly on the grounds of perception and fairness, this Bill falls short.”
“This begs the question: how will this Bill, in particular, if enacted, address such examples of alleged foreign interference? The Straits Times, our newspaper of record, does not make this very clear. What must Singaporeans do to heighten our sensitivity to such interference? And how is this Government ensuring that the message flows to the masses and new generations of Singaporeans, including new citizens, given that Singapore's destiny as an immigrant nation is almost certain? At best, the messaging is a bit unclear. In her Committee of Supply speech, Minister Josephine Teo spoke of a curious spike in 2018 and 2019 of online comments critical of Singapore, many from anonymous accounts, when there was a bilateral spat with Malaysia. This spike in online chatter sought to give the artificial impression that there were significant and fundamental objections to Singapore's position. This episode was also covered in the 25 September Straits Times story. Mr Speaker, this was a highly opportune moment to share the nature of the threat and to engage in a conversation with the public on foreign interference. But beyond these scanty details, no further clarity and communication on foreign interference have followed. More fundamentally, how does the Government distinguish between a genuine groundswell of sentiment and a dedicated hostile information campaign? I note that the MHA press release of the First Reading of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill dated 13 September 2021 anonymised this example, although it was clear that the MHA press release was referring to the same episode highlighted by Minister Josephine Teo in her parliamentary speech.”