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 2 of 36.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the second half of 2025 saw a raft of reports on retrenchments in Singapore, ranging from foreign and local companies, affecting both professional, managers, executives and technicians (PMET), and rank and file workers. In one case, a unionised company did not inform the Ministry of its intentions, leaving workers in the lurch, while there are reports of another company including a clause in its severance agreement to disentitle workers from retrenchment benefits if they report the retrenchment to the authorities. My first supplementary question is this. Will the Government mandate that all retrenchments by companies, regardless of size, be it more or less than 25 workers, would have to be reported before an exercise is carried out? And second, that a company that includes punitive and unreasonable clauses with respect to retrenchment, like the one I referred to earlier, can at minimum expect to have its Work Pass privileges revoked, in addition to other penalties? My second supplementary question: I note Senior Minister of State's reply and the differentiating factor was companies with 10 or more employees, and my Parliamentary Question covered companies with 25 or more employees. I use the number "25" because the recent Workplace Fairness Act created a differentiated regime based on this number of employees. Companies with more workers were deemed to have more resources to comply, while those with less were exempt, even though they still have to comply with the spirit of the law through the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question. Does the Government plan to track the deployment of individuals and workers at the workplace after their attendance of such AI courses, in view of the significant public subsidies that the Government expenses on these courses?”
“Can I request that whichever WP MP wishes, they may have their dissent recorded?”
“No, Mr Speaker. I raised my hand for Point of Order and the Leader corrected herself.”
“I did not say I was a judge in my own cause. As I mentioned, the respected President who opened this House takes a view about a criminal conviction. His view, his honest, sincere view. I take my view as well. But that does not mean I disrespect the Courts.”
“I had a clarification for the Leader, which she has not replied, about the number of briefings that were given to me, the number of trips I went to, which was a point she made. So, I think she should close the loop on that.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I took some notes as the Leader was speaking. If I got some of her representations wrong, please let me know. I will correct them. The Leader said that the WP's position seems to be that the rules do not apply to us. I do not believe this was the position anyone made. The rules certainly apply to us. But in the course of her speech, she also mentioned somebody has to decide. There is a judge. The judge makes a decision. I fully accept the authority and the finality of the Court's decision. I disagree with the findings. A judgment determines legal responsibility. It does not require a person to abandon their honest belief about their motivations and their values. I have not disappeared and avoided scrutiny. It has been one month since the judgment. I have done my work. I have continued to do my work. And I will continue to do my work faithfully, as I have done for the last 15 years. On the point that the Leader made, I think towards the end of her round up speech, where she gave us advice on what is good for the WP and good for the Opposition. I think we can be the judge of that, with due respect. We continue to serve faithfully. We have always championed the importance of a rational, responsible, respectable Opposition in the House and will continue to do so. In terms of this point, the Opposition exists not because it is infallible, but because democratic systems, particularly one-party dominant systems, require challenge, require balance and genuine alternative voices. And as long as this role is performed lawfully, respectfully, it remains legitimate and important. And the WP will continue serving in this role. That is all I have to say, Mr Speaker, with regard to clarifications.”
“Mr Speaker, I am disappointed with that ruling, but I can accept and respect it.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, but not pertaining to what my colleague Mr Kenneth Tiong was saying. Prior to this, I understand you said the Leader would be rounding up. I just wanted to know whether there is a ruling on my —”
“In the course of her speech, Leader of the House made a tangential point about the other duties of the Leader of the Opposition, including following Government on overseas trips and receiving classified briefings. Perhaps, for good order, the Leader can share how many of such briefings were extended to me and how many trips I went with the Government to various places for. To conclude, Mr Speaker, my colleagues and I see a better future for Singapore and Singaporeans, with a more balanced Parliament and a democratic society based on justice and equality. The future we envisage for Singapore does not call for the destruction of the stable and sensible politics Singaporeans seek to uphold in Singapore. And that makes Resolution 6 of the Motion unobjectionable. In fact, my predecessor, Mr Low Thia Khiang, after giving evidence at my trial, said to the media, I quote: "The voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not a good politician, and I believe Pritam Singh is a good politician. He is a capable, competent leader with a heart for Singapore and Singaporeans." To be clear, I do not undertake my political work for such testimonies. I am grateful for the support of Singapore and Singaporeans, and like my colleagues and leaders before me, all of us endeavour to do our best for Singapore. In my case, whatever Parliament decides and as long as I am an MP, I will continue my work as a MP on the ground in Aljunied GRC, and I will continue to advocate for Singaporeans in Parliament to the best of my abilities, as I have for the last 15 years. For the WP and to my fellow Singaporeans, we press on and we continue working for Singapore. Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]”
“That said, I reiterate, I should have done better in balancing the need to be sensitive to Khan for the reason she gave for lying to Parliament on the one hand and resolving the matter of a lie in Parliament as soon as possible. Resolution 4 asserts that my continuation in the Leader of the Opposition role would undermine public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system, amongst other things. To this, I make one point. On the matter of the Leader of the Opposition appointment, I refer to a question that was asked of me by Daryl Lim, a Lianhe Zaobao reporter, on 4 May 2025, one day after Polling Day. He asked, "In the next Parliament, it looks like the PAP and the Workers' Party. As Leader of the Opposition, what does it look like for the future of the opposition in Singapore?" I answered, "I don't know whether I'm going to be Leader of the Opposition. This is something the government of the day has to decide. So, let's see what happens there." In Singapore, the Leader of the Opposition appointment is not a constitutional or statutory one. I have never operated on the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition appointment is a given, nor have I hankered for it. I have done my best to work with my colleagues to advance the interests of Singaporeans with the WP as a responsible Opposition through the office. I reject Resolution 4, which flows from Resolutions 2 and 3. On Resolution 5, I take the view that no action should be taken against my colleagues, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap, as I do not agree with the judgement and the findings of the COP.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will continue. There are those who believe that whatever our Courts decide, a convicted person is unable to retain their belief that they are innocent insofar as a conviction is concerned. In 1994, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam was convicted for a different criminal offence. The President, who opened this very session of Parliament only some months back, was asked about this in an interview with the online news channel, Mothership, just prior to his election victory in the 2023 Presidential Elections. He said in response to his conviction that, I quote, "They got the wrong man." A criminal conviction does not negate one's right to assert innocence. A finding of guilt by the Courts did not undermine the President's personal view of his conviction. In my case, my conscience will always be clear insofar as my conviction on both charges is concerned. However, as I iterated in my public remarks after the judgment was given, I take full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct Khan's lie in her speech on women's empowerment in Parliament on 3 August 2021. In fact, this was not the first time that I had taken responsibility to this effect. I had done so in similar terms publicly three times before: first at the COP itself, next at the debate on the COP Report and finally, at the trial Court. I did not have close to three years to deal with a sensitive matter involving one of my MPs. My timeframe was far shorter and I tried to do what I deemed was best for the MP in question and for Parliament, with a view to work towards an outcome where the MP took ownership and responsibility for her actions. I certainly did not expect the MP to double down on her lie when asked about it, so I reject Resolution 3 of the Motion.”
“The relevant provision is section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code and I have a copy of it here. So, perhaps I can read out from that. And the answer would be in the affirmative. But because I have the provision, let me just read it out. "Restrictions on use of materials disclosed by the prosecution, section 225A. (1) Where the prosecution discloses (whether before, on or after 17 September 2018) any material to the accused or the accused’s advocate (if any) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings — (a) that material may be disclosed, for the purposes of those criminal proceedings, to any co‑accused in those criminal proceedings, or to the advocate (if any) of any such co‑accused, by any of the following persons: (i) the accused; (ii) the accused’s advocate (if any); (iii) any other co‑accused or advocate to whom that material was disclosed under this paragraph. (b) on and after 17 September 2018, each of the following persons is deemed to give an undertaking to the court not to use that material for any purpose (other than the purposes of those criminal proceedings) without the permission of the Public Prosecutor". So, to answer the Minister's question, these are the relevant provisions. And the PP has to be informed, or permission has to be granted from him to use those statements outside of criminal proceedings.”
“Mr Speaker, I am not re-litigating the case. I want to stress that. The statement that I have handed over to Speaker was not admissible in Court. But it remains a Police statement made under oath and my application, if I can call it that, is to allow me to recite the question and answer to that statement, because it is of relevance to Resolution 3 in the Motion.”
“For the reason that Parliament is sovereign. 4.14 pm”
“Not the Prosecution's statement. The Police statement.”
“I wrote to the PP seeking permission to refer to these undisclosed statements for the purposes of today's Parliamentary Motion. However, my request was rejected by the PP. Nonetheless, Parliament is sovereign, which means it is supreme above all other Government institutions, including the executive and judicial bodies. And for Parliamentary purposes, Police statements under oath must be official documents and the reply to one question goes to the heart of my position in rejecting Resolution 3 of the Motion. Members would remember that these Police statements arose out of Parliament's referral of Mr Faisal and myself to the PP. As Parliament is sovereign, I would like to pass up a copy to Speaker for his consideration before permission is given to me to read out one question and its corresponding answer.”
“40 pm, 4 November last year – Justice Chong says the Prosecution's point that Mr Singh did not stand up to clarify on 4 October 2021 when Ms Khan doubled down on her lie in Parliament is not remarkable. It is not realistic to expect him to immediately react to what she said was a lie, he says. This can cut both ways as events subsequently demonstrate, he adds. The Judge notes that it is unrealistic to say that just because Singh did not stand up that day to clarify, it does not mean that doubling down is something he told her to do." I also refer to the notes of evidence of 4 November on appeal. This is at page 51. Court to my lawyer: "But you are pitching your case to say that Mr Singh never told her to lie, but that might be right." My lawyer: "I am not pitching it. I mean, factually, as Your Honour has recognised, that is right. Nobody is saying that." Court: "Correct." On Resolution 2, I disagree that my conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, as I disagree with the finding of guilt by the Courts and the COP. Owing to relatively recent developments to the criminal law, the prosecution today must hand over witness statements in its possession that are favourable to my case before the trial begins. This is a legal obligation under what I refer to as the Kadar disclosure rules. As per law, I was given portions of Loh Pei Ying's statements that she made to the Police. However, such statements are inadmissible in court, subject to the criteria in section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and subject to the usual rules of evidence. In addition, under section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code, permission must be given by the PP to use the undisclosed statements outside trial proceedings.”
“As for the other circumstantial evidence used to sustain my conviction, the legal opinion of the defence at trial was that enough evidence was canvassed to Court to render a conviction on both charges, unsafe in law, with reasonable doubt, duly established. This explains why the defence's considered view was that there was no necessity for me to call Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap up as witnesses. This is all I will say on this point, in concert with Speaker's earlier ruling, as I do not intend to use my speech to review matters the Court has deliberated and ruled upon. To that end, the law has run its course – and I accept and respect that. On Resolution 1 of the Motion, as an Opposition MP, my colleagues and I play a role in upholding our Organs of State. This disposition explains why I have no difficulty agreeing with Resolution 1 of the Motion. On Resolution 2, it is worthwhile to recall that the COP's findings went much further than the charges that were preferred against me. It is a fact that the subject of guiding Khan to continue to lie, which is found in the Leader of the House's Motion, was not framed as a charge that was preferred against me. Parliament would recall that it had referred my matter to the Police and the PP to review all evidence afresh. It follows that the PP would have no trouble framing a charge to this effect if indeed there was sufficient evidence that I had guided Khan to lie. My position is Khan was not told to lie, let alone guided to lie. I reject Resolution 2. To this end, Sir, let me refer to some reports that were published in The Straits Times as the appeal was heard: "3.”
“Mr Speaker, before I begin, I wish to state that when it comes to the vote on this Motion, I have communicated with the WP MPs that the party whip is lifted. They are free to vote as they consider fit. On my submissions and response to what the Leader has said, including going through aspects of the judgment, my submissions to the Court and my defence are found online. I have posted all my defence submissions online. They can be read. Sir, after any Magistrate Court has given its judgment, the decision can only be appealed to the High Court and no further. There is no further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. One has to accept the verdict fully and without reservation. I will explain why I was disappointed with the judgment, a public comment which I did not hear from the Leader's opening. I will explain why I was disappointed with the judgment and therefore do not agree with it. To this end, I will make some general points first and address all the resolutions of the Motion in the course of my speech. I will use the word "resolutions" in my speech. Leader used the word "limbs". The defence's position, amongst other things, was straightforward. Raeesah Khan was not told to take her lie to the grave on 8 August 2021. The Courts have ruled that her SMS message of 8 August of having been told to take her lie to the grave was the anchoring piece of documentary evidence and, along with other circumstantial evidence, led to the trial judge's conclusion that such a statement was made by myself. My conscience remains clear, as it will forever, that this was not said by me to Khan at any point in time.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. It appears to me that the question on safety involves two distinct issues. One is Singapore's own decisions insofar as SMRs and Gen IV technology is concerned; and the other question is the regional roll-out of nuclear technologies. So, the public education process has to address both these issues. On the matter of announcements made by countries in the region, can the Minister confirm: what is the extent of that progress? And is the technology that is being considered by these regional partners of ours of the new generation nuclear technologies or of the old generation technologies? That aside, the other question, of course, is in terms of the Government's plans, specifically in terms of public education. The paper that I referred to, which was in my Parliamentary Question, the 2018 paper, which was funded by the Singapore National Research Foundation, suggests that there may be a lot of misunderstanding with regard to nuclear technology amongst Singaporeans, that has to be overcome. Granted, the sample size was small, which is 39, but the suggestion is that there is quite a bit of work to be done on the public education front.”
“Mr Speaker, just a quick clarification. I am assuming this will be to Minister Tong. On one of the clarifications that I had sought – I thank the Minister for addressing a number of those that I had put out. The point about the Online Criminal Harms Act, a sister legislation; and the implementation direction that the Government had issued to Facebook on their measures against scams, I think they had a timeline: first, end of September; then, end of October. I asked that question, actually, not specific to that, but just to have a better understanding of how the platforms will respond to the Bill the Government seeks to pass today. As an example, Handout 2 states the platform – a victim will essentially go to the platform at first instance, except in a few different circumstances, and these pertain to intimate image abuse, doxxing, image-based child abuse – that one you go straight to OSC. In the first case, I am trying to understand from the victim's perspective, how quick can we expect the platforms to respond to victims of online harm? I think this aspect of it is really the substance of that particular clarification, where I sought to understand how promptly and the extent to which the social media platforms would be able to comply.”
“Can the Minister share the rationale behind the treatment or the differentiated treatment, because from a layman's perspective, both are essentially appeals? One approach to consider is for the Government or the Commissioner to provide reasons in both cases, or the Commission to provide reasons in both cases. Doing so would be helpful in reducing the number of appeals if the Commissioner's decisions are clearly explained at the outset, subject to the usual privacy concerns. Can the Minister explain the approach taken in the Bill so as not to give the impression that the first appeal to the Commissioner to reconsider the decision is not perfunctory? Clause 94 creates the tort of failing to respond reasonably to an online harm notice. In this particular case, while it is foreseeable that the form of an online harm notice will be forthcoming, can the Minister shed light on what constitutes a reasonable response time from the online service provider? The illustration to this clause makes reference to the word "promptly" when a social media service responds to an online harm notice. This suggests that the interpretation of "reasonable" ought to be construed as "forthwith" or "almost at once". Would this be a correct reading and expectation of how quickly an online service provider is expected to react? Sir, these are the clarifications I seek and I look forward to the Minister's reply. Notwithstanding the amendments in the name of He Ting Ru and subject to the clarifications from the Ministers, the WP will support the Bill.”
“Can the Minister confirm, notwithstanding Minister's comments about the usual police procedures, if anything in this part of the Bill allows the Commissioner to, for example, seize or retain a mobile device or laptop on grounds of an investigation into an alleged online harm under this Bill? Clause 52 gives the Commissioner powers to obtain specified information about an end user and it does not matter if that end user is outside Singapore. I would like to enquire how the online service providers the Ministry has sought feedback from for the purposes of the Bill have reacted to this requirement and whether they would be able to comply, particularly online providers such as Telegram, an entity the Government is reported to have had difficulty with in the past. In this connection, can the Minister provide an update to the House on whether Meta has complied with the competent authorities' implementation directive to strengthen Facebook's measures against scams by 31 October this year as part of the OCHA. While I accept the relevant law is different, it would be useful for the House to understand how our laws interface with how promptly and the extent to which social media platforms can comply with them, and if not, why not? Part 7 of the Bill covers reconsiderations and appeals. Clause 59(1)(d) requires the Commissioner to inform an applicant of the result of a reconsidered decision within a reasonable time. This clause does not require the Commissioner to provide reasons for his decision. In contrast, on the matter of the Appeal Committee in clause 64(5)(a), the Committee is required to state the reasons for his decision in respect of the appeal.”
“To this end, in finding the same, clause 20A of the Bill considers relevant factors, such as whether the material dehumanises any person or persons, or otherwise portrays them as less than human. For example, in the event a foreign embassy puts up a post that tends to incite, would the Commissioner issue an order against the embassy, an online service provider, or Singaporeans who share the post, or all three? In connection to this, I seek clarity on the ambit of clause 22, which states that a victim of online harmful activity can be anyone who is a citizen or Permanent Resident of Singapore. Clause 22(1)C also includes an individual who has a prescribed connection to Singapore to make a report to the Commission. The interpretation section of the Bill does not define this prescribed connection, unlike how it defines prescribed online service provider. Can the Minister clarify if the Bill can be expected to extend to all work pass holders in Singapore, including foreigners, or even diplomatic staff who make reports to the OSC seeking relief outside the excluded online harmful activities covering incitement of enmity and incitement of violence? And if not, what are the exceptions? I move to Part 6 of the Bill covering information and end user identity matters. The Commissioner is empowered to require any person to provide in any form or manner any information or document, whether kept in Singapore or not. This includes requiring the person to provide an explanation of the information or document, including providing access by way of username, password or any other authentication information. Clause 49(4) states that the Commissioner is entitled without payment to keep any information or document.”
“To this end, can the Minister share the scope and outreach plans the Government has under this clause to address online harms, with particular focus on juveniles and young adults? Does it intend to copy the Australian approach with adjustments for the local context, or does it, for example, intend to work closely with the Ministry of Education to consider novel approaches? Are there specific autochthonous approaches on preventive education that pertain to online conduct and behaviours the Ministry plans on introducing suited for local circumstances? Clause 11 on the non-consensual disclosure of private information is not clear as to what private information entails. While the clause leaves open clarity for future regulations, as drafted it reads too widely to be of practical application, and is thus unsatisfactory. On a plain reading, it begs more questions than it answers. The clause states that private information is information about a person that is not widely available to the public at large. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill does not aid at all to clarify the ambit or context of "not widely available", and what it means. I hope the Minister can shed light on this clause and briefly outline how regulations will address the ambit of private information in this clause. If the private information is, for example, found behind a paywall of an exclusive and expensive online publication with limited circulation, would that information be construed as not being widely available? Clause 20 covers a specific online harm, namely incitement of the enmity, which means the communication of online material that a reasonable person would conclude incites, or is likely to incite feelings of enmity, hatred or hostility against any group in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the amendments filed by Sengkang group representation constituency (GRC) MP, Ms He Ting Ru, and further elaborated upon by NCMPs Andre Low and Eileen Chong, and agree that these amendments strengthen the Bill for victims and better calibrate the significant powers Parliament is investing in the Commission. I have some queries that cover about 10 clauses in the Bill as tabled by the Government for Second Reading. First, clause 5(6) of the Bill allows the Minister to give the Commissioner directions of a general or special character, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The Explanatory Statement does not shed light on what the ambit or scope of these two types of directions are. What general or special character directions does this clause envisage, which are not already fully captured or foreshadowed by the Bill? Can the Minister clarify what are some of the directions that the Minister envisages to give under this clause, or is this clause to be understood as a general one that confers broad and inchoate powers to the Minister? Clause 8 empowers the Commissioner to issue advisory guidelines. As much as public attention on this Bill has focused on online harmful activities and the statutory torts that arise from them, I believe one important barometer for the success of the Bill will lie in its capacity for preventive education. The Australian government's eSafety Online Commissioner's website is a useful guide to take note of as a one stop site to assist victims navigate the difficult terrain of online harms and educate young and old Singaporeans about the impact of their words and actions online, with a view to establish acceptable norms of online behaviour.”
“Mr Speaker, that is precisely why I am making the Personal Explanation: to put on record what the circumstances were, with regard to the statements that I made on 14 October in Parliament and to correct the impression that would have logically flowed from the use of that word. So, I can understand where the Leader is coming from. Hence, the clarification. I do not believe there are any other outstanding matters. Leader can correct me if that is not the case.”
“The basis is the fact that Mr Deros was not invited by Mr Faisal. So, my impression based on what had transpired at the elections and also, in the course of the Ministerial Statement was, there was no WP member who specifically sought out Mr Noor Deros. That is how I phrased — or that understanding led me to use the word "gate-crashed". But on reflection, that would not be a correct word to use, because it is quite clear that, and by Mr Deros' own statements in public that he was invited by the ustaz who Mr Faisal was in contact with. That also has been stated in my Personal Explanation.”
“Mr Speaker, I believe this was clear in my Personal Explanation that by using the word "gate-crashed", I would have created an impression that Mr Noor Deros was not invited by anyone. So, that would be wrong. It would not be right to leave that impression on the record. Hence, my decision to make a Personal Explanation, on my own volition, today. The position, of course, is not known to me that he was — based on what I had said in April was based on the knowledge I had in April and the knowledge that I had in October. The revelation of this message that Mr Noor Deros was attending the meeting which was sent to Mr Faisal one hour before the meeting was only made known to me, I believe I mentioned it, on 21 October. So, it is knowledge that I received after the fact. I have made certain statements in Parliament about it. I have this knowledge. So, I come to Parliament and I correct the impression that I have left with Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, I want to be careful in not trying to import Mr Faisal's knowledge and make a representation which may not be correct as to the degree of which he knew him. Did he know of him or did know of him as an individual? I think the Leader shared a particular occasion where both of them were at a common platform. To the extent of how much Mr Faisal Manap knew of Mr Deros, I am not in a position to relay any information in that regard. But I have seen pictures to that effect of both Mr Faisal and Mr Noor Deros being at that event that the Leader mentioned. But I cannot stand here and suggest or even imply the extent of how well they knew each other.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, Mr Faisal may have known of him, but the other Malay/Muslim candidates did not know of him. On my personal basis, I did not know who Mr Noor Deros was as well. So, in that context, that is what I mean when I say Mr Noor Deros is a nobody.”
“This would be an incorrect impression since I had confirmed later in the course of my response in this House to Member Saktiandi that Mr Noor Deros's presence at the meeting was at the invitation of an ustaz delegated by Mr Faisal. I would like to put this clarification on the record, Mr Speaker. I believe that deals with the Personal Explanation that I am obliged to share with Speaker, as per the Standing Orders. There was an additional question from the Leader that pertained to Mr Noor Deros being a nobody. I have confirmed in the statement that the WP Malay/Muslim candidates confirmed that there were no promises or undertakings made. They also confirmed that they did not know who Mr Noor Deros was. That is the position. Mr Faisal, as the Leader of the House shares, must have been known to Mr Deros because he was present at this Wear White event. So, Mr Faisal Manap would have known of who Mr Noor Deros was. I hope that clarifies the query that the Leader put. And if I have not addressed any point, I would be grateful if Leader could repeat the question.”
“Neither Mr Faisal nor the Malay WP candidates arranged to meet Mr Noor Deros or specifically sought him out for his views. Mr Faisal shared that after GE 2011, he had approached an ustaz who was involved in inter-faith discourse to seek guidance on how he, being a minority Malay/Muslim MP could perform his role in a way that would best fit Singapore's multi-religious and multi-cultural society. He found the guidance helpful and meaningful, and hence, prior to GE 2015, he arranged for a similar session with an ustaz for himself and the WP Malay candidates to seek guidance and advice. Mr Faisal confirms that the motives behind the meeting prior to GE 2025, which was attended by Mr Noor Deros, were the same. On 12 April 2025, before Parliament was dissolved and Nomination Day announced, the ustaz who invited Mr Noor Deros, reached out to Mr Faisal informing him that he was planning to engage with the group of his asatizah friends to meet Mr Faisal to exchange ideas and thoughts. In response, Mr Faisal said that he planned to engage with the ustaz for a sharing session with other WP Malay candidates in the lead-up to GE 2025. When the meeting took place on 20 April, I can reconfirm that no promises or undertakings were made by Mr Faisal or the WP Malay/Muslim candidates present, in exchange for political support from Mr Noor Deros during the elections. This has been reconfirmed to me by Mr Faisal and the WP Malay/Muslim candidates who were present at the meeting. During the Parliamentary exchange last month, I also said that Mr Noor Deros gate-crashed the meeting. In using the word "gate-crashed", I may have created an impression that Mr Noor Deros was not invited by anyone.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a clarification pertaining to my response to a clarification from Member of Parliament (MP) Mr Saktiandi Supaat that arose from the Coordinating Minister for National Security's Ministerial Statement on 11 October, last month. I had stated, referencing my remarks at the WP's 26 April 2025 doorstop interview with the press that, I quote: "There was no indication that this individual would be joining in the meeting." By this individual I am referring to a Singaporean Citizen one Noor Deros. On 21 October 2025, about a week after the Ministerial Statement, Mr Faisal Manap shared with me a WhatsApp message that he received on his mobile device at the material time. The WhatsApp message showed that the ustaz who had invited Mr Noor Deros to a meeting with Mr Faisal had sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Faisal on 20 April, about one hour before the meeting in question, indicating that Noor Deros would be present. I was not aware of this detail in April this year, nor was I aware of it last month during the exchange on the Ministerial Statement. In view of this, I asked Mr Faisal to provide context for the meeting where Mr Noor Deros was present in view of the Ministerial Statement and the Parliamentary consensus that race and religion should not be used for political gain. I said in Parliament last month that the meeting in question was arranged by an ustaz who was known to Mr Faisal. The meeting took place on 20 April this year. I said, quoting Mr Deros's Facebook post of 3 May 2025 that he attended the meeting at the invitation of an ustaz who was delegated by Mr Faisal. This is correct and consistent with the facts of the meeting.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Leader of the House. Just for a matter of record, before the Ministerial Statement was made, I communicated with Speaker, to inform Speaker last night that I would seek to make a clarification on certain representations that I had made in the House which were incorrect and they had to be clarified for the record. So, just to be clear, I am responding through Standing Order No 25. Standing Order No 25 requires me to send to the Speaker in advance what I am going to share with this House and I will stick to that, notwithstanding Leader's questions. But apart from one point, I think all the questions that she has asked in her Ministerial Statement will be dealt with in the Personal Explanation.”
“I think Government officials, even Ministers, meet with various members of religious groups in Singapore. So do we. And if this gentleman thinks that his advocacy will lead to the issues being brought up by the Workers’ Party, I think he is sadly mistaken." Sir, in my view, that is a rejection of what Mr Deros is trying to put forth. And I do not intend to repeat myself, but in the broad approach that the Minister is suggesting, going forward, in terms of ensuring that religion, race is not involved, or it does not mix with politics, we can agree with that. And I think most sensible Singaporeans, and the vast majority of Singaporeans, I would add, would agree with that. The Ministerial Statement today was about race or religion. I want to pick up on a second point which Mr Low was alluding to. I believe after the last elections, the ones before, in GE2020, a Minister himself came out to say that an older generation of Singaporeans has a certain approach with regard to race and religion; and a younger generation take a different approach. Can I confirm with the Minister, is there a new framework that the Government is considering in view of this difference of approach in addressing race or religion issues? Can we, for example, see more safe spaces or different style of trying to deal with race or religion issues, particularly for the reasons that the Minister states – the nature of social media and how a certain tribalism can develop in society?”
“Mr Speaker, I just want to clarify this for the record and I think it is important that I do so. This is an extract of a question that was asked to me during the doorstop. And the Minister can take a view whether WP rejected what Mr Deros was proposing. In my view, I believe we did. The question was, "We saw the post that WP has put up this morning" – this is from the journalist – "regarding foreign interference and regarding the WP's Muslim candidate meeting with the Malaysian activist, Noor Deros" – that is wrong, he is Singaporean – "so could you walk us through some details of the meeting? When did the meeting take place?" And then it goes on, "And was it part of the consideration that WP fielded Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines to meet with the Tampines MP Masagos? Is it a coincidence that he is the Muslim Affairs Minister in this area? Was the meeting part of the consideration following?” My reply, "No, absolutely not. Let me add to what has been already shared by way of the media statement this morning. What had happened was that one of our Muslim committee members in one of the mosques in Aljunied wanted to speak to Mr Faisal and to the Malay members of the party. And what happened was that the meeting was supposed to take place with some ulama, some senior Malay/Muslim religious leaders. There was no indication that this individual would be joining in the meeting. So, when the meeting started, he was there, and my understanding is he had this list of demands. And of course, as our statement makes it quite clear, there is no situation of, I quote, 'if the WP pushes forward this agenda, I will support you.' I am sorry. We do not work politics like that in Singapore. We do not work politics like that in Workers’ Party. People have views.”
“Mr Speaker, I am not going to go beyond what we said during the elections. That would be correct, because that was what was said. But the point that I made early on before this exchange is, it was quite unequivocal in my understanding. By the time the matter came to a head at the Tampines rally, the statements that were made, I think, it was very clear where we stood on involvement of race or religion in politics. If somebody comes along and says, "I am of a certain race, and WP should support us because we are taking certain identity politics type of arguments forward." We will reject those, as we have to.”
“Mr Speaker, I did not intend to participate further in this exchange. But as Member Saktiandi seems to suggest, I shared, publicly, the circumstances which relate to how Mr Noor Deros met up with certain WP candidates. Mr Noor Deros himself, in a post on 6 May, says he was invited by an ustaz delegated by Mr Faisal Manap. Those are his views. This idea, just like the Minister says, we meet with people from all walks of life. I believe there was a CNA article shortly after the elections. Ministers Ong Ye Kung and Chee Hong Tat have no dealings with Fujian gang member, Su Haijin, says press secretaries, "As Ministers, they meet a diverse range of people at various events and gatherings." The key point to note is Mr Noor Deros has some views. He wants to advance a certain view of society. The WP rejected it.”
“Sir, I do not intend to repeat myself. Just to share that the MHA-ELD statement, again did not refer to Deros. The only time it came up officially from the Government was when the Prime Minister brought Noor Deros up specifically. So, our statement focused on foreign interference. But as the Prime Minister made his press conference, this was on 26 April at around noon-ish; same night, we made our position very clear on needing support from individuals on racial and religious grounds. We do not need that sort of support. So, I think that is unequivocal. I do not think I can be clearer than that. But the substance of what the Minister has gone on in his Ministerial Statement is not objectionable.”
“Just a matter of clarification. I think the Minister started by referring to meeting Deros and I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he gate-crashed the meeting that Mr Faisal Manap was having with someone else. My understanding from Mr Faisal Manap is there was no arrangement to meet him specifically. But this is just a fact by the by, but the points that the Minister has made in terms of not wanting such interference, rejecting individuals who attempt to use identity politics to win votes, I can agree with that. And I think most Singaporeans will agree with that. The point I wish to highlight, and I am not sure whether the Minister has been unequivocal about it, is when something like this happens, there is an asymmetry of information. The Government has a perspective which is far broader than a small political party. And my point is, if it is serious enough, in the Minister's words, for the Prime Minister to take measures such as stopping campaigning halfway to clarify a point, I do not think it is too difficult to reach out in the national interest to get that clarification also from all political parties as one Singapore. I hope the Minister can consider this in future.”
“In the past there was only one dominant party, now there are multiple Malay parties and those with Malay components", and this is the former Malay Muslim Affairs Minister saying, "I thought it would be good for party activists to be introduced and build bridges with these parties and personalities." It is an extensive article and the Minister also said, "but I thought it would be useful to deploy our Malay activists in a way that would relive the purpose of the MAB: how do we help the party win over the Malay community now?" I am not sure what is the party's approach to this matter, but what I would be interested in is, given this relationship that the PAP and PAS seem to have, was there any attempt made by PAP Members or intermediaries in private to communicate with PAS and to inform them not to interfere in our elections forthwith? And at the same time, did the Government make any intervention or formally raised this matter with the Malaysian counterparts as to not to do this in future?”
“Thank you for that, Minister. Indeed, there is an assessment made. And my own view on this matter is, when a nobody claims that there is a set of demands that he has of a political party, one has to think of a number of factors. The Streisand effect – by raising the matter, are you actually, in the heat of an election, bringing the issue to greater focus? So, by dealing with it on 23 or 24 April, points made by a certain Noor Deros, who really no one knows. I certainly did not know of him. He later on, on 6 May, accepts that WP did not agree to anything that he said. He also later on, congratulated Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong. He speaks well of the Government. Ultimately, in the heat of the elections, attentions are all over the place. And for an opposition party indeed, Nomination Day – I do not think I need to state here how even the PAP had to move candidates last minute – your attention is all over the place. But what I would say is that we had made our views quite clear on foreign interference. I understand the Minister says that the statement on Noor Deros could have been clearer, I accept that. I think we can make certain things very clear. But my point is if we talk about the national interest, if this is so important to the Government, there are other ways to deal with it collectively as one Singapore. On the matter of PAS, I think the Minister made some extended comments about PAS. About one year ago, at this time, we know that PAP Malay MPs went to Malaysia. The Malay Action Bureau in particular went to Malaysia and there was some communication with PAS, and on Petir, the PAP publication outlet, the mast head says, "The PAP story told from within". "Malaysian politics has evolved.”
“Mr Speaker, before I go into that, I do not think the Minister has answered the point about section 8A of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act and what Noor Deros, a Singaporean, said and did, and how the Government responded.”
“So, the point I am making to the Minister is, if something is heading into dangerous territory, I think there are many ways, in the national interest, for the Government to communicate with political parties and say, "Look, this is not on. And we are communicating this. We need to come together, resolve it, make that clear statement". And if the party is not prepared to make a statement, then I think the Minister is fully at liberty to make the comments that he wishes to. But I do not think it is fair to say that the WP did not take this issue seriously. I also would like to clarify – did Noor Deros break any laws? Was a Police report made against him, or was it in the Government's contemplation to issue a restraining order against him under section 8 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act? Because the Prime Minister decides to take a break from the hustings and made a statement in the national interest. So, just to clarify, what considerations were on the Government's mind, in terms of trying to nip this issue at the bud? For the moment, these are my clarifications. Mr Speaker, I may clarify further, subject to what the Minister says.”
“I understand Minister has an issue about the context of what was said. It could have been clearer, more unequivocal. And the Minister concedes that on 26 April, that same day the press release of the WP was released that morning, in the evening, there is a rally, and at Tampines, I make what I think the Minister says are clearer remarks and statements about race and religion. So, I have a disagreement with the Minister about the question of timing. Who was Noor Deros before these elections? I did not know him. I am not sure whether the Minister knew him or if the Ministry knew of him, unless he was on Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) or had served with MUIS at some point in some capacity. I am not sure. I do not know. But as far as the WP is concerned, we do not really have an operations room or a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) office to monitor what foreigners or what people are saying about politics and where they may be venturing into territory which is dangerous. But in the event there is something untoward or awry, the WP is not shy of coming together and trying to resolve the issue. I will give an example as a matter of clarification. The first rally we had at Anchorvale, the rally site looks, starts to turn dangerous because people are slipping and sliding, and the Police commander on the ground is unsure, uncertain what is happening. And he says, "Look, we may have to shut the rally site down". So, I said, "Let me make a remark to the crowd and ask them to keep safe". And we deal with the situation.”
“Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for the Statement. It appears to me that one of the issues the Minister raises is with regard to timing, in terms of how quickly the WP responded to some of the issues the Minister covered in his Statement. Let me put that question of timing into perspective. But before I do so, let me just read out as a preamble, a short remark that I made at the doorstop interview on 26 April, one day after the MHA-ELD statement was made. And I said this, "I think MHA and ELD have put together a message and I stand behind that message. Our political scene is for our people. We persuade Singaporeans of our value proposition and we urge all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, to judge us on our manifesto and our proposals, and what we do in Parliament for all Singaporeans, not specific communities only. I think once we go down that road, you're going to have an unnecessary politicisation of the public space and we don't want that. That's not healthy for Singapore and that's not healthy for our minority communities as well." On the matter of timing, the joint MHA-ELD statement was published on 25 April. It does not refer to Noor Deros, who is a Singaporean. It makes reference to foreigners attempting to influence the GE. This comes out on 25 April, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, the statement comes out at about 10.00 pm on 25 April. On 26 April, the following morning, at 9.30 am, the WP releases its statement, overnight. At 11.30 am or thereabouts, there is a doorstop interview and one of the remarks that I made include what I have just mentioned, as the preamble to this clarification. So, on the matter of timing, I do not agree with the Minister that we took too long.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the extended reply by the Senior Minister of State. I think for the very reason the Senior Minister of State suggests, enforcement can also be very intensed on the platform worker. I would, if I can advance an idea, that the second supplementary question I asked with regard to giving us a sense of what is the landscape like with regard to outsourced workers in the food delivery space, I think the reporting requirement does not have to be monthly or even quarterly, but at least year on year. There has to be some idea for the public to understand how many foreigners are operating in this space or potentially can be operating in this space. I think that would be helpful, because if the number is minimal, for example, to address surge, then from a behavioural perspective, I think platform workers will also be more receptive to understand that the Ministry has got a handle on this issue and it is prepared to look into the prospect of too many foreigners potentially being in this space.”
“Obliged, Mr Speaker. My second question was specific to one of the recommendations of the Platform Workers Trilateral Group, which advised platform operators to conduct audits of all outsourced workers and to share the work pass documentation of outsourced workers with the Ministry. I do not mean to add on to this question, but in view of the Senior Minister of State's reply, because of these submission requirements or tracking requirements, does the Minister not agree that it would be possible to have some sense of how many foreigners are operating in this space, since the Platform Workers Trilateral Group does envisage the submission of details, which can reflect what is the footprint of foreigners in this space?”