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 24 of 36.
“But the Government must be careful not to be perceived as taking sides but instead err on the side of wisdom, especially on matters that are expressions of free speech, particularly in the entertainment and performing arts space. Instead of a hard policy, such as bans, a graduated approach establishing a range of conditions like that done by IMDA in its original assessment of the Watain concert may better reflect the compromises required to create and sustain as accommodating and robust a common public space as possible. To that end, effective laws and an activist bureaucracy are only one aspect of the solution. A robust education system which continues beyond school – one that enjoins Singaporeans to ascribe to an attitude of live and let live, respect for both the religious and non-religious, and dealing with fellow citizens with tolerance and mutual respect, with the knowledge that we only have one another to lean on in good times and bad, are equally, or if not more important. Ultimately, it is the Golden Rule – that we should not do unto others as we would not have others done to us – that must be the dictum all Singaporeans, be it in the online or real world. References to the Golden Rule are found in all the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity and Islam, and separately in other faiths and belief systems, such as Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism, amongst many others. And even for those who are atheist or agnostic and do not follow any religion, such a moral principle, underpinned by mutual respect and tolerance, is one they, like all Singaporeans, I would hazard, would generously support.”
“Their early years were filled with notoriety – their singer committed suicide with a gun to his head, and a picture of his corpse was used as an album cover and they were also tied to a string of church burnings in Norway. I do not think many of us in this House are aware that Mayhem actually performed in Singapore in 2006. Deafheaven, a Grammy-nominated band, but derided by old metal heads as a "hipster" band, also played in Singapore in 2014. To that end, how will IMDA assess applications for black metal groups in future? Separately, which agency will compensate Watain’s promoters and what amount does the wasted expenditure come up to? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is the secular basis of our state which also allows for selective interventions which allow the Government to accommodate totally different spiritual and moral beliefs hosted amongst different citizens. As the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony iterated, while the Government should not be antagonistic to the religious beliefs of the population, it must remain neutral in its relations with the different religious groups, not favouring any of them in preference to the others. I would add that this expectation of neutrality should not only apply to religious groups but other civic groups and citizens in general in their dealings with the Government as well. Overall, the Government’s careful and balanced approach to uphold a strictly secular society so as to preserve a common public space, and its principles towards religious harmony as enunciated in the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony and, separately, the latest MHA statement in 2017 are sound and should be supported.”
“Two days before the band’s slated performance, a widely publicised online petition made its rounds seeking to, I quote "ban satanic music groups Watain and Soilwork from performing in Singapore." MHA thereafter requested IMDA to cancel the concert on the day of the scheduled performance and at the eleventh hour. Ironically, the cancellation arguably brought far more attention to the band and their music than it would have, had the concert gone ahead. In fact, for a period of time on Spotify in the days following the ban, Watain had more listeners from Singapore compared to any other country in the world. According to IMDA's letter to The Straits Times Forum, the cancellation of the concert was due to new and serious concerns about public order, and ground reactions relating to social and religious harmony. Mr Speaker, I accept that new considerations can present themselves after approval is granted for performances and the Government is not out of place to revisit the issue. Interestingly, in the comment section of the online petition against Watain, more than a few interventions alluded to why the Government was suddenly allowing black metal bands – many of which regularly host Satanic themes – into Singapore. From an online search, it would appear that even local black metal bands have been part of our entertainment ecosystem for many years now and foreign black metal bands have been allowed into Singapore previously. For example, a band known as Mayhem are one of the founders of the Norwegian black metal scene from the 1980s, a forerunner of bands like Watain. They built on the extreme metal sound crafted by earlier groups like Venom, Slayer and Bathory.”
“By its own admission, IMDA's conditions in originally allowing Watain to perform in Singapore included the removal of songs which were religiously offensive, the band could not make references to religion or use religious symbols and that no ritualistic acts like showering the audience in pig’s blood as had been done before in another jurisdiction, were to be performed on stage. Furthermore, given the band's history and concerns expressed by MHA, IMDA allowed the Watain concert with a rating of Restricted 18 (R18) and on the condition that it would be a very small concert with only a maximum of 200 people allowed to attend. It would also appear that IMDA and MHA's assessment included foreknowledge of Watain’s reputation, the use of anti-Christian lyrics and references to Satanism in some of their music. On the surface of things, these conditions should have addressed concerns about race and religion since the application essentially involved an established genre of entertainment. I should also add that I was not aware opposition to Watain was prevalent amongst mainstream Christians until revealed by the Minister earlier. In rationalising its decision, IMDA stated, in assessing and classifying content for arts performances and concerts, it aims to protect the young from unsuitable content, maintain community norms and values, and safeguard public interest, while enabling adults to make informed choices. Allowing adults to make informed choices is a clarion feature of a secular society that seeks to preserve the common space. It would appear that the original approach taken by IMDA correctly sought to carefully balance the competing and legitimate concerns of various segments of society.”
“The recent episode involving the black metal band Watain is a case in point. From public comments made by the Minister and IMDA, there may be a conflation in the public mind of the regime MHA applies in deciding whether to approve or reject the entry of a religious preacher on the one hand, and the conditional approval by IMDA of a black metal band, for example, which covers a genre of entertainment on the other. It would appear that different considerations should continue to apply in each respective case. In the case of a preacher, it would appear that prior comments, particularly on inter-religious matters made by such a person would be relevant in deciding whether to grant such an individual entry into Singapore. Should a preacher have described those outside his faith or even within his faith in offensive terms, then a red flag ought to be raised, as the Ministry has done in the past, and the person prevented from entering Singapore for the purposes of addressing a congregation. Unlike the assessment regime for entertainment, however, it would not be reasonable or rational to impose conditions that require a preacher to avoid speaking about race or religion. If anything, promising not to disparage other faiths in Singapore but to be able to do so in other jurisdictions would make a mockery of the entire belief system of such an individual. In the case of entertainment or a band, the Government appears to have a variated regime in place, one which does not hesitate to prohibit, correctly I would add, music that denigrates other religions, peoples or faiths. My understanding is that this has been imposed in the past for concerts involving even mainstream singers like Eric Clapton and other black metal bands.”
“Combined with the political economy of social media revenue models and the unique heuristics of the Internet ecosystem that highlights the sensational, hate speech is something all societies are affected by, with approaches to address it differing even amongst similar societies. Going forward, Mr Speaker, and partly arising from the online space, my sense is that the Government and Singaporeans will have to come to terms with disagreement and contestation on a wide variety of issues because of the Internet. Many societies around the world are getting more religious, with many groups more strident in their advocacy. Separately, a recent IPS survey observed that young people take a more permissive attitude to offensive speech, a fact which does not necessarily suggest that they approve of it, but they are prepared for a discussion on such issues. In such a context, the balance between respecting individual views of a very diverse society like ours that hosts different mores, thresholds and tastes on the one hand, and the importance of a fair and even-handed approach in governing a multiracial and multi-religious society on the other, will become an important marker of a cohesive and united society. This cohesion and unity will be in danger if the Government is seen to be straying from its long-standing approach of strict secularism to preserve the common space that must be shared by all communities and individuals, a common space that must ensure minorities continue to deserve protection and should not be subject to mob justice. Our people will also have a critical role in adopting an even-handed attitude in living in a society that seeks to preserve the common space, and respect the fact that no one has a right to impose one’s beliefs on others.”
“This category can potentially be made even larger depending on how quickly some of us get offended, making executive action open to politicisation. Given Singapore’s open economy and cosmopolitan society which are exposed to both Western and Eastern views, attitudes to what some regard as offensive speech can differ greatly amongst citizens and even those from the same religious group. Most recently in 2017, MHA released a statement on offensive speech and expression involving race or religion. It set out the Government's position in managing issues and reiterated that Singapore’s approach to the matter sought to guarantee the safety, security and freedom of religion for all, with a view to creating a common space for everyone. The annex to the MHA statement covered 14 incidents from 2005 to 2017 where the Government had to invoke the Sedition Act and Penal Code to deal with offensive speech, including the issuance of stern warnings and conditional warnings against various individuals. None of these interventions involved offensive speech in the performing arts or entertainment space. Unsurprisingly, however, 11 out of the 14 cases involved comments made online, on Facebook, on blogs or in online chatrooms. Sir, my generation has grown up with the Internet being a large part of our lives. While the Internet has been an incredible platform in democratising information and has been a force for good in many aspects of our lives from economics to entrepreneurship, the anonymity, immediacy and ubiquitous nature of the Internet have also given extremists and those who revel in offensive speech a powerful podium.”
“Mr Speaker, social harmony, racial and religious tolerance, robust but reasoned and respectful debate on contentious issues, all create an environment for modern societies to flourish and thrive. Hate speech, regardless who it is directed against – be it fellow citizens of different races and religions or against other communities and groups, such as immigrants, those of a different ethnic origin, new citizens or even against those who proscribe to different life choices, do not profess a faith, or are of a different sexual orientation – ought to have no place in Singapore society, either now or in the future. Hate speech per se tends to exist at one end of the spectrum as it usually hosts extreme prejudice or calls for actionable violence against individuals. The Christchurch terrorist attack on a mosque by a white supremacist exposes the dangers of hate speech that is directed at people of a particular faith with the perpetrator making his views known publicly before carrying out his gruesome act that was roundly condemned by all Singaporeans. The Workers' Party, too, condemns this cowardly attack. It is telling how significant our own biases and perceptions determine attitudes towards people who are different from us. A fair number of people I spoke to were surprised that more than 70% of all terrorist attacks are carried out by far right, non-Muslim and often white attackers, a fact Minister shared during his recent speech to the Religious Rehabilitation Group. Apart from hate speech, however, is a potentially larger category of offensive speech, not quite a call to arms and as extreme, but expression which is deeply abhorrent, insensitive and completely unnecessary nonetheless.”
“How many times has this happened in the past? Did it just occur in early 2017 or was it ongoing?”
“Mr Speaker, according to a Straits Times report, Hyflux's financial woes were a direct reason explaining why the company was unable to replace poorly performing membranes promptly in early 2017, a state of affairs which affected the quality and quantity of water that was produced by the Tuaspring desalination plant (TSDP). To that end, I have a few questions for the Minister. Firstly, as the quality of water was affected, did this compromise public safety at any point in time? Secondly, which entity eventually paid for the membrane replacement and was any compensation paid or owing to PUB as a result of Hyflux's failure to ensure the quality and quantity of water produced by the TSDP in early 2017? My final question is: how often has this situation developed in the TSDP? Was it just in early 2017 or was it an ongoing occurrence?”
“Passengers do not buy Business Class if what they really want is Economy. But in public transport, we make these decisions for commuters, using public funds. The good thing is, we can give all Singaporeans high-quality public transport even if the private market would not cater to them. But we have to be careful that we do not overpay for services that are not valued by the commuting public. I urge the Ministry to outline a comprehensive strategy for ensuring we have both value for money and high quality in public transport operations. For buses, at the operational level, what can we do, using route design, schedule optimisation and new technology, such as on-demand services, to improve efficiency? On the strategic level, how are we evaluating the GCM and the contracting environment to improve competitiveness in tendering? For rail, can we make further use of time of travel shifting measures, such as peak and off-peak fares, to reduce costly excess capacity? Most importantly, how can we engage the fare-paying public to give them a role in determining what services they value and what they do not want to pay for? Putting Commuters First”
“What has been the Government's experience working together with the United Nations (UN) weather agency, the World Meteorological Organisation, since its establishment in Singapore in 2017 in benefiting the weather-sensitive aviation sector towards aviation safety? Finally, can the Ministry provide an update on the use of space-based very high frequency (VHF) communications for air traffic management in the Singapore FIR? Value for Money in Public Transport Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Chairman, MOT's operating expenditures have risen quickly. This year’s Budget projects operating expenditure just above $2 billion, up from less than $1 billion a few years ago. Public transport services have benefited. In 2017, the Public Transport Council (PTC) reported that 94.5% were satisfied with public transport, significantly up from earlier years. However, I am concerned that efficiency has suffered even as quality has improved. Based on data from the Land Transport Authority (LTA), under the Government Contracting Model (GCM), the fares we pay for buses only cover half of the operating costs today. Before GCM, bus operators generally had fare revenues within a few percentage points of operating costs. A similar story applies for train operations. Rail fare revenue was sufficient to cover operating costs, until recent years where losses have mounted due to maintenance expenditures. For the future, the Minister for Transport has said that fares may cover less than half of the operating expenses of the Thomson-East Coast Line. Chairman, there is a difference between public transport operations and fully private transport markets. In the private airline market, passengers buy the ticket that suits their needs. They choose based on price, value, convenience.”
“Chairman, discussion about the Singapore Flight Information Region (FIR) has come under the spotlight again and, in recent times, particularly with Malaysia's intention to impose a military training area above Pasir Gudang, including its announcement to, I quote, "take back", unquote, parts of the Singapore FIR from our management, some quarters in Indonesia have similarly lobbied to reclaim sovereignty of the Singapore FIR over the Riau Islands for several years now. Sir, FIR management is fundamentally about providing smooth and efficient air traffic control services with aviation safety being the topmost consideration, not sovereignty. Singapore has been known internationally to manage its FIR efficiently and impartially. Realigning parts of the Singapore FIR to mirror territorial boundaries would risk creating a severely fragmented airspace around Singapore, with serious aviation safety risks for all users. With six airports, including international airports in Johor, Batam and Bintan within 50 nautical miles of Singapore, a fragmented FIR will raise the risk of mishaps and accidents. How does the Ministry currently manage flights bound for international airports in close proximity to Singapore, both inbound and outbound, and have our neighbours raised any issues with our management of the Singapore FIR thus far? I would also like to seek an update on the Ministry's initiatives to better manage our airspace. Some years ago, a Centre of Excellence Air Traffic Management Fund of $200 million was set up. What has been the drawdown rate of this fund and what other measures has the Government lined up to ensure that Singapore maintains its status as a premier FIR manager?”
“Chairman. My question is directed at Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong. This is with respect to my cut on Greater MediSave Flexibility for senior citizens, particularly those above 60. The Senior Minister of State mentioned in his reply that eight out of 10 patients pay less than $100 in cash as a result of their hospitalisation. Can I just get a sense of the average amount that patients pay for the remaining 20% of that category? In addition to that, what are the absolute numbers of hospitalisations we are talking about in that particular category, those who pay above $100?”
“I understand the Frequently Asked Questions section on MediShield Life on the MOH website provides a helpful table, setting out the incurred loss ratio of the scheme each year. Can the Minister share, in light of MediShield Life transitional subsidies ending this year and the incurred loss ratios over the years exceeding 90% so far, does the Council foresee an increase in premiums in the near future? Sir, I believe transparency can help control healthcare costs by widening debate and scrutiny. It also helps create peace of mind that all is done to ensure the affordability of these compulsory insurance schemes. In the absence of such knowledge regarding spending, insurance may be inaccurately perceived by some as a pure tax, rather than a risk-pooling scheme that is closely tied to each participating cohorts' expected benefits. Helping Expectant Mothers”
“The public cannot opt-out of either scheme, and this fact alone brings into sharp focus the premiums of compulsory risk-pooling schemes. It would follow that the adequacy ratios of such schemes and the Government's reasons and assumptions behind premium pricing should be made more transparent so that the public can understand the factors behind premiums calculation. One of the pain points that was manifested through public discussions prior to the debate in this House on the CareShield Life White Paper last year surrounded the fact that from 2002 to 2016, ElderShield collected $2.6 billion in premiums, and only slightly in excess of $100 million was paid out. The importance of pre-funding for such schemes aside, a general lack of understanding contributed to the public dissonance on the issue, as the numbers suggest over-collection of premiums. I appreciate that the actuarial models that determine how premiums are priced are complex and multifaceted. Some factors include disability mortality, recovery rate, claims continuance rate, improvements to mortality as well as the risk profiles of various cohorts, amongst others. However, complexity should not be a reason to avoid publishing these considerations and the weightage of the calculations behind them. With the upcoming legislation of CareShield Life, I hope these assumptions and considerations can be meaningfully communicated to all Singaporeans. On a similar note, I would like to enquire about the frequency with which MediShield Life's adequacy ratio is reviewed by the MediShield Life Council and considered by the Ministry, so as to ensure that the greater transparency on reserve requirements called for in the MediShield Life Review Committee report are meaningfully operationalised.”
“Sir, this cut seeks to explore whether the Ministry can grant Singaporeans greater flexibility to use more of their own MediSave to pay their hospital bills. This is particularly for bills which are not covered by MediShield Life or because the amount owing is within the deductible limit and, hence, must be settled solely by the patient in cash or MediSave. In such cases, MediShield Life does not kick in because it is meant for larger hospital bills. While MediSave can be used, it is subject to limits and, in many cases, a few hundred dollars will still have to coughed up in cash. I believe there is scope for the Government to exercise some flexibility and give Singaporeans the choice of allowing the entire remaining amount after subsidies to be paid by a patient's MediSave instead of cash, bearing in mind the matter involves a hospitalisation. For citizens with sufficient MediSave balances, and who are in their senior years from the age of 60, in particular, some additional flexibility in terms of choice would bring significant peace of mind, leaving cash in their pocket. I hope the Government can look into this to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses for this category of Singaporeans. For example, can the Government consider a tiered-withdrawal quantum for those above 60, not too dissimilar from the MediSave withdrawals for Long-Term Care announced in July last year to achieve a sustainable balance between the use of member's MediSave savings for the immediate term and the future respectively? Compulsory Insurance – Adequacy Ratios Chairman, Sir, CareShield Life and MediShield Life are both compulsory schemes, with the former soon to become a central pillar of our healthcare system.”
“Chairman, I rise to reply to the question that was asked by the Minister for Manpower. A similar question, I believe, was asked by Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad during the Budget Debate and I rose at the end of that debate to say that the Workers' Party supports the Budget but subject to our opposition on GST. Let me be clear about the position on the DRC once again. As a matter of principle, we support the lowering of the DRC for services, as we feel that we should reduce our over-reliance on foreign manpower where we can. This is so that we can look to raise and improve the job prospects of Singaporeans.”
“Can I enquire what action the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) or the Ministry takes to deal with it and how does it educate such employers? Employment Passes”
“Mr Chairman, according to MOM, "triple weak" companies are those that do not meet the minimum criteria in terms of nurturing and having a Singaporean Core in their workforce and having a tangential reference to Singapore's economy and society. The prospects of Singaporeans being hired into such companies and doing well or getting promoted are low. In September last year, the Minister for Manpower confirmed that the Ministry was monitoring 250 companies labelled as "triple weak", up from the 100 in February. Out of the original 100 companies, about 20 were removed from the watch list as their HR practices had been raised to industry standards. Does the Minister have an update on MOM's investigation into the remaining companies? Separately, has there been a reduction in the prevalence of such "triple weak" companies? What is the current number of companies that are under investigation and which industries do such companies predominate in? How does the Ministry identify such companies and is there scope for greater enforcement, including whistleblowing channels, to identify such companies early? What action does MOM take for companies that are uncooperative, show no improvement in their policies or slide back to their own ways of being "triple weak"? Finally, are the directors of such companies also barred from setting up new companies and the status of their directorships in other companies revealed? The Minister of Manpower mentioned at the last COS that some employers have the preconceived ideas that local PMETs are either unable or unwilling to work, so such companies write off Singaporeans without even considering them fairly.”
“Chairman, according to the Third Report of the Estimates Committee of Parliament released in October last year, 18 out of the 23 industries under the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) would see manpower growth up to 2030, while the remainder are not envisaged to experience any manpower growth up to the same period of time. These include food services, retail and real estate, amongst others, while other sectors, such as construction, do not have any manpower targets as their manpower needs are seasonal and based on cyclical factors. At the recent pre-Budget dialogue with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, some panelists stated that they only had a vague idea of how SMEs stand to benefit from the ITMs. Apart from the Special Employment Credit (SEC), going forward, what are the Government's plans to prompt, support and encourage Singapore companies to accelerate the transformation of their business and HR processes to hire Singaporeans above the age of 65, provide higher salaries to attract Singaporean employees or successfully hire women, men or older workers who prefer part-time work as a result of needing time to look after children or their dependants, or for some other reasons? How do the ITMs support these objectives, and can they play a more facilitative role in this regard than is currently the case, particularly for smaller SMEs that may find it more challenging to take advantage of the ITM format to fulfil the larger national objectives of creating a strong and united Singapore? Self-employed Persons”
“If I can put it in a different way. Right now, let us say, the shoe is on the other foot and the consumer decides to move on to another retailer, because the rates are more favourable than the existing rate that the consumer has bargained for. What would happen is they have to pay a termination fee and I am just wondering if there is a similar mechanism if it was the other way round. That is essentially the essence of my question.”
“Just following up with the clarification from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Tan Wu Ming on electricity retailers. I understand in the event a retailer exits from the market in the household sector, the retailer will be required, as per Senior Parliamentary Secretary's answer, to provide electricity or to find a retailer who would provide electricity at the same price. In the event that fails, I do not believe that Senior Parliamentary Secretary Tan has clarified what compensation alternatives would be available to the residents, given that they would be back on the standard SP tariff rate. In case I missed that, just a query.”
“Would households also be barred by EMA from claiming for their expectation loss and what compensation would be available should the retail price of electricity be significantly higher at the point of termination, to the detriment of the consumer? Finally, it was reported in today's Business Times that out of the 30 licensed electricity retailers, the 13 which were authorised to sell electricity to households and small businesses have cleared "additional regulatory hoops to ensure viability to safeguard consumers' interests." As Red Dot Power was one of them, what were these additional regulatory hoops and what went wrong? Agile Regulations”
“Sir, the nation-wide rollout of the Open Electricity Market last September giving households the option of buying electricity at a discount to the tariff rate is one important avenue by which Singaporeans can better manage the cost of living. This consideration is also relevant for Town Councils as such statutory organisations have also benefited from the liberalisation of the electricity market earlier. However, on 2 January this year, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) shared with Town Councils that one player, Red Dot Power, which coincidentally was in an existing electricity supply contract with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, would be exiting the market. EMA informed the Town Council the retailer would cease to be able to purchase electricity from 4 January, and all accounts under the Town Council's purview would be transferred to the SP Group. EMA also informed the Town Council that any early termination fees/charges contractually that the Town Council would have had with the affected retailer would not be applicable. While there was no interruption of electricity services, weeks elapsed before a new contract could be called for and awarded. In the interim, the wholesale SP tariff rate applied which was significantly higher than the contracted rate, at the cost of savings to the Town Council. With individual households now able to buy electricity directly from retailers, how will EMA deal with retailers that unilaterally terminate their contracts in the retail space? What recourse do households have against such retailers that unilaterally abandon their contract or are not able to fulfil it?”
“I urge the Ministry to keep a tab on this issue to see how low-income hardcore addicts can be better rehabilitated since many, in view of the concurrent criminal record of antecedents, may not be able to extricate themselves out of the LT regime towards rehabilitation. Paradoxically, these low-income hardcore addicts may need the most help and rehabilitative assistance. Inmates' Employability”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, earlier this week, CNB shared that the number of drug abusers in Singapore in 2018 had increased by 11%, with new abusers comprising 40% of all cases. In concert, the drugs of choice have also evolved. Today, psychoactive substances and methamphetamine are the norm. To this end, the recent amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act in the direction of rehabilitation for hardcore addicts are to be welcomed. The Minister shared during the Debate that the profile of abusers had changed along with the change in profile of the general population. However, in the absence of more information on the background of hardcore addicts in Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) and long-term (LT) imprisonment, I am concerned that the latest rehabilitative improvements may inevitably be tilted in favour of addicts who come from more affluent households. On the surface of things, it would appear that they would have fewer obstacles procuring drugs as compared to low-income addicts who may resort to crime to feed their urge. Such a prospect may mean that hardcore addicts with criminal antecedents and para-criminal charges would ironically have lesser access to the new rehabilitation regime which can help keep them out of long-term detention. A useful indication of how the new regime may operate would be to have some sense of the income and social economic background of hardcore addicts who are under the LT regime. I would also like to enquire if there is a distinction to the type of drugs consumed by low-income and affluent addicts respectively.”
“Chairman, Sir, my question is to the Minister of Defence. Is MINDEF at liberty to share whether the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter that is going to be procured, is it the conventional take-off and landing version or the short take-off and the vertical landing version?”
“Chairman, Sir, NS is a key institution in this country we call home. Hundreds and thousands of men have served in uniform since 1967 and stand ready to defend the country as operationally-ready NSmen. In the runup to 2030, however, the effects of our steadily declining total fertility rate (TFR) will begin to be acutely felt with NS numbers dropping by about one-third from the current numbers. This outcome will have a significant impact on manpower-intensive vocations and services, such as the Army, in particular. Some years ago, the Minister shared that part of the solution would be the steady evolution to motorised platforms and equipment that require a lower complement of men and women to man. Can the Minister update the House on how the SAF is preparing itself for a manpower-lean future and outline the SAF's approach over the next few years, so as to ensure that a credible and effective fighting force stands ready to defend Singapore from 2030? And to this end, does the Minister foresee an even greater reliance on unmanned platforms and does the SAF intend to procure such platforms in a weaponised form in larger numbers? Separately, in light of the regional and global environment, it would appear the SAF will continue to play a significant role in various national duties alongside Home Team units. More recently, the Minister has spoken about ramping up cyber warfare and cyber defence capabilities. These are likely to stretch the SAF's manpower requirements even further. How will the SAF manage the manpower imperatives of these new functions, in addition to its core war-fighting responsibilities, in light of dwindling numbers over the next few years? F-35”
“And what is stopping the fund from reporting its yearly performance so as to meaningfully allow the public to track its performance closely, as we see with Temasek today? Restructuring Retirement Tax Reliefs Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, tax structure has an important role to play in retirement adequacy. We grant income tax reliefs for retirement savings, and we do not tax income from retirement accounts, except for the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) at a concessionary rate. These tax advantages are a hidden subsidy to retirement for the rich. Because the value of tax relief depends on Assessable Income, high-income Singaporeans benefit much more than the low-income do. The Minister stated recently that 90% of those making SRS contributions have Assessable Income above $80,000, and the average marginal tax rate there is about 15% for those making the contributions. As for Central Provident Fund (CPF), my estimates suggest that CPF tax reliefs cost the Treasury about $1 billion annually. We might accept this if tax relief was effective at increasing retirement savings. But the international evidence now suggests otherwise. A review by Bernatzi et al, published in Psychological Science in 2017, suggests tax incentives only generate a few dollars of incremental retirement savings for each tax dollar spent. This is an order of magnitude less cost‐effective than alternative policies, such as simply providing targeted information on retirement planning. There are alternative revenue-neutral policies that could boost retirement adequacy for all. Mr Chairman, may I have your permission to display a slide on the screen?”
“Sir, probably, the largest contributor to the Net Investment Return (NIR) component of the NIRC, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation's (GIC's) mission is to preserve and enhance the long-term international purchasing power of the country's Reserves. The size of the fund GIC manages has been estimated by some at well over hundreds of billions of dollars. For the year ended 31 March 2018, GIC achieved the 20-year annualised rate of return of 3.4% above global inflation. The year before that, the rate of return was 3.7%, and for the year ended 31 March 2016, it was 4%. This constitutes three consecutive years of decline from the 4.7% at the end of 31 March 2015. GIC's latest report states that the reason for this decline is that the high returns from the beginning of the tech bubble window have dropped out of the rolling 20-year return window while the post-tech bubble declines have remained. GIC foresees this decline in the rolling 20-year annualised rate of return to continue for a few years, although the same report states that, in most recent years, the returns have been good. In previous replies in Parliament on fund performance, officeholders have stated that the Government's view is that GIC and Temasek have performed creditably in challenging market conditions. How does the Government ascertain this beyond the inputs of individuals who are on the boards of these funds? How does the public scrutinise fund performance and comparison to other fund managers with not too dissimilar or long-term mandates? What does the GIC mean when it states the returns from the recent years have been good?”
“00 pm Finally, it was announced that the Elections Department will conduct roadshows to educate voters on changes to the Parliamentary elections system, specifically, the electronic registration for voters. Can the Prime Minister update the House on this matter and the number of roadshows that will be organised for this purpose, where and when they will be held in the months to come?”
“Sir, in 2015, Workers' Party Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Yee Jenn Jong noted that the completeness of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) report had been shrinking over the years and asked for the meeting minutes of the Committee's report to be released. In response, the Prime Minister replied that on the completeness of the report and the minutes, "I leave that to the Committee". Even though the Prime Minister said that he was not in favour of publishing every twist and turn that would be reflected in the minutes, the Prime Minister was noncommittal on the prospect of a more complete report. It would appear that this can change should the Government decide to do so since the EBRC's Terms of Reference are determined by the Prime Minister himself. I hope we can move from the circular nature of these justifications and provide a report for the public that details why specific precincts in Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) are moved or swapped for each and every constituency in future. In addition, why does the Government not announce the formation of the EBRC as a matter of practice? It would be a waste of Parliament's time and even bordering on an abuse of process if a Member of Parliament had to file the same Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister when rumours of an imminent election are in the air. In making the point, can I enquire if the EBRC has been formed? In 2013, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean stated that the Prime Minister will certainly remain open to and consider making refinements to its procedures when necessary. I hope these suggestions on greater detail in the Committee’s report and announcing when the Committee is formed will be taken on board. 4.”
“1 billion, $8 billion with interest, and other components coming in, it is still a small percentage of the overall NIRC revenue that the Government is constitutionally allocated. In that context, is it possible to still consider moving away from cohort-based packages to something more permanent and universal, but with, of course, the additional MediSave top-ups and other issues which I raised in my speech as optional items, so to speak. That is my first clarification and I apologise if I went too long. My next one is much shorter. Sir, at the last Budget Debate, the Workers' Party made a point that we support the Budget but because of the announcement on the GST, we voted against the Budget. Similarly for this year, we support the Budget, but our position on the GST has not changed. I just want to put that down for the record.”
“Sir, on page 14 of the paper, which is a Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy paper, there are two questions that were asked: first question is: would you be comfortable paying for higher social spending on the elderly through higher taxation instead of tapping on the national Reserves? The second question is: should NIR used to fund social expenditure for the current generation be increased and the amount reserved for future generations likewise decreased? There is a response on page 13. The response is, slightly more than 40% of respondents disagree to paying higher taxes to fund increased social spending on the elderly. The survey notes that while there were more neutral responses with the question on using a larger share of the returns from investing national Reserves to finance higher social spending, more respondents agreed to the statement than disagreed with it. To a large extent, it is not surprising, People would react emotionally to issues of taxation, how it is funded and so forth. But I think what was interesting was the final analysis from the IPS researchers which was, for both questions, respondents aged 45 to 64 – and I am assuming Ah Seng and Ah Kong are part of this – respondents aged 45 to 64 were more likely to disagree to pay higher taxes rather than tapping on national Reserves and to agree to using a larger share of the NIR to finance current social spending for the elderly. This is the interesting part: this age group experiences the highest tax burden and may be feeling the greatest uncertainty about financing their own post-retirement living expenses. So, with that as a gauge, I have to put the issue again about NIRC for which NII is a component. If you look at the Merdeka package about $6.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for Finance for his round-up speech and addressing some of the issues that were raised in my speech. I want to revisit this idea of, not a cohort-based health benefits scheme for our seniors but something more permanent. My point really comes back to some of the other issues that were raised by Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat and some of the other Members. The argument really is, the Government will not know how much its surplus would be through the course of the term before it decides how much it can give out for these packages. So, you have to earn your keep before spending, so to speak. But if you look at one of the Budget annexes on the Analysis of Revenue and Expenditure, based on the NIRC component which includes both the Net Investment Income (NII) and NIR, for the last four years, it has come up to $62 billion. And based on the trending, it would probably to be about $80 billion over the course of one Government's term, provided it runs for its full five years. Be that as it may, I would like to make a quick reference to the Singapore Perspectives background paper which was released in 2018. This was an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey that was carried out. I have an extra copy. If I may, Mr Speaker, can I just pass it to the Minister of Finance?”
“Mr Speaker, I had informed the Ministry of Finance's officeholders that Mr Leon Perera will not be speaking.”
“Mr Speaker, there are many well-meaning Singaporeans who want to consider different roads for Singapore, without losing sight of the hard truth of being a country without any natural resources and with our human resource (HR) of fellow Singaporeans as the only real substantive competitive advantage. The Bicentennial offers us an opportunity to imagine the richness and breadth of conversations about the Singapore we are entering into in the years to come, a Singapore that is not just economically successful, but socially and culturally confident, too, with Singaporeans of all stripes proud to call it home. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, many of the values that we hold dear – the importance of family, prudence, hard work and discipline – are all-weather values and must stand the test of time. These values must run through whatever future we envision for our children’s generation, wherever the winds of Global-Asia lead us and wherever we lead them. They must stand the test of time even if changes come thick and fast. They are at the foundation of the Singapore we all want. But each generation must also be given the freedom to shape the future they seek and to feel that they are an integral part of the country. The Budget should reflect and facilitate this. The need for a confident population, as opposed to an insecure one, will be the "X" factor that determines how united and strong the Singapore of tomorrow will be. A confident population being one with more choices to determine its destiny; a society that accepts that it is only as strong as its weakest link and its most vulnerable; and a people – both employers and employees – all rooted to the Singapore that will always be home for us as we transit into our golden years.”
“A strong and united Singapore will not be built with some Singaporeans being made to feel that they must conform or support the Government's narrative with little room for alternative views. This is a sure way of heralding not just a divided and insecure population, but a divisive conversation about the choices we have to make collectively. Increasingly, as we move into the future, the Government will not have all the answers. Since the days of decolonisation, numerous countries have introduced some form of legalisation that promotes greater transparency and accountability. In fact, out of the 110 or so countries in the world today which host some form of a freedom of information law, about 80 introduced such legislation only in the last 30 years or so. While such laws are no panacea nor a silver bullet, they are but one piece of a larger citizen-centric ecosystem, which moves the needle forward on civic participation. If change is, indeed, going to be deeper and faster, then Singaporeans must be ready to become active participants of that process, with the Government facilitating conversations by sharing more information. For example, insofar as the Budget is concerned, enough well-meaning Singaporeans do not just want to take the Government at its word but want to crunch the numbers themselves and better understand policy tradeoffs, but they are not necessarily able to do so today. Last year, an article in the Business Times put this quandary in stark perspective. It was appropriately titled, "Lack of data on Singapore's Reserves limits discussion on its use". With about 20% of our Budget financed by proceeds from our Reserves, one can understand why this issue is a relevant one.”
“As we move past the Bicentennial and into unchartered terrain, our challenges will be far more unique and complex than before. The availability of good jobs for Singaporeans first will be at the heart of many conversations. Employers and SMEs, many of whom have delivered phenomenal economic success to Singapore in the past, will have to adjust and effect real change at the workplace for the benefit of Singaporeans. This would include redesigning jobs for older and more experienced Singaporeans, more part-time or half-day or work from home opportunities, so as to better support our workers from mothers to senior citizens and gig-economy workers. On its part, the Government must be prepared to do more to support businesses that do so with tax relief or rebates so that the economic transformation many businesses are undertaking is directly dovetailed to jobs for Singaporeans. My colleague, Workers' Party Chair Sylvia Lim, will speak more on the employment landscape tomorrow. The faster and deeper changes premonitioned by the Minister would no doubt include the irreversible advance of the smart nation, the rapid evolution of technology and its disruptive and dislocative effects on jobs. But what this prospect also means is that Singaporeans must commit themselves to participate in civic affairs if we are to be united and strong. Mr Speaker, Singaporeans have been referred to as champion grumblers. I disagree. Singaporeans criticise because we care about the country and we care about the direction it is headed. But we also care about ourselves and our families and friends and do not want to be shortchanged.”
“How does the Government and the upcoming Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Masterplan accommodate the drawbacks of greater urbanisation, particularly rising temperatures, and how does it gel with our desire to leave a liveable Singapore behind for our children and their children’s children? If the Government is not finished building Singapore, how will it ensure that this effort will not come at the expense of our green spaces? I hope the Government addresses this matter clearly and actively welcomes a future where we place far greater emphasis on environmental impact assessments and its attendant social issues with a view to leave a sustainable Singapore for future generations of Singaporeans. Finally, Mr Speaker, the Minister shared that the "changes ahead will be faster and deeper". In this regard the Bicentennial offers a unique opportunity to reflect on the colonial experience, both the good and the bad, the choices made, and where we are headed as a people. As Singaporeans of the PG grew up through the 1950s and as the MG grew up in the years after self-government, the colonial masters in the United Kingdom (UK) had earlier taken a leap of faith, ambitious and bold, even if imperfect, implementing a universal healthcare system for about 50 million people as the flag of the empire was lowered across the colonies. The 50-odd years since decolonisation saw newly independent societies and governments fashioning their countries to improve the lives of their peoples. Not all succeeded to the same degree. The vast majority had to contend with extreme poverty and problems on a far greater scale and with a much larger population than Singapore's.”
“The prospect of raising our roads, port areas amongst others, sounds like a massive undertaking both in effort and expense, particularly when one does not just imagine raising road levels, but thinks about building kilometres of dykes and so forth. The Minister shared that while it was difficult to project such spending, some preliminary estimates had been carried out. Could the Minister provide a sense of these estimates, the financing approach and the infrastructure required for this purpose? Continuing on the effects of climate change, how little is recycled and how much food waste is generated in Singapore, it is apparent that the conversation Singaporeans need to have on conservation has to be elevated. This objective should be an explicit goal of the Waste Masterplan. I look forward to the Masterplan and hope Singaporeans are sufficiently moved into action by it. In fact, like the Government's successful water story, closing the waste cycle would be a significant chapter of the Singapore story and provide a blueprint for other cities to consider. The Minister also mentioned in his speech that greening is an important public policy, given our dense urban environment. A few weeks ago, Channel NewsAsia ran a one-hour documentary on the effects of rising temperatures in Singapore with an emphasis on not just climate change in general, but the perils of greater urbanisation, identifying the urban heat island effect, with the loss of open areas and secondary forests like Tengah likely to have an immediate impact on liveability in future. Researchers posited that greening, it and of itself, contributes little to mitigate the urban heat island effect.”
“To this end, when speaking of specific infrastructure investments envisaged, the Minister only spoke of funding Changi Airport's expansion through borrowing, while speaking more generally about how the Government funded the first Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line through borrowing as well. In comparison, at last year’s Budget, four separate infrastructure prongs were highlighted, and these included the expansion of our MRT lines, regional redevelopment including the Jurong Lake District, Punggol Digital District and Woodlands North Coast, the rejuvenation of our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats and associated infrastructure and finally, Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5), the Tuas Megaport and the now postponed High-Speed Rail (HSR). I have a few clarifications in this regard. First, can the Minister clarify if borrowing from the market for infrastructure development is only limited to Changi's expansion or does it extend to the other long-term infrastructure plans shared by the Minister last year? Secondly, and as a consequence, how will this new differentiated approach announced this year impact future budgeting and, more specifically, revenue available for recurrent spending? Mr Speaker, leaving a sustainable Singapore for our future generations would mean planning infrastructure for climate change and rising sea levels, a subject Minister Heng Swee Keat spent some time on. At the COS debate in 2016, I filed a cut on rising water levels and shared with Members a video of waves breaching the foreshore along a beach at the East Coast Park, flooding the back shore.”
“Indeed, to be constantly reminded that a covenant exists between the state and citizen. Vowing to assist all Singaporeans equally with their medical needs in their silver years augurs well for a confident and assured society, without compromising the work ethic. This is especially so as living in a developed country with one of the highest per capita gross domestic products (GDP) in the world comes with costs, particularly for the sandwich middle-class. As all Singaporeans commit their best years and pay taxes like the GST to the state throughout their working lives, a permanent package that helps our seniors manage their cost-of-living issues in their golden years will inject a powerful message of unity into Singaporeans of all ages. My colleagues Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Dennis Tan will speak more on the MGP in the course of this debate. Secondly, I seek to share my views on the Minister's exhortation that the Government seeks to "not only take care of this generation but our children and their children’s generation". Mr Speaker, there is little to quarrel with such a statement. It coheres with the values many Singaporeans hold dear, regardless of race or religion. But looking after the next generation puts the question of intergenerational equity on the table. During the course of his speech, the Minister confirmed the Government's intention to pursue a differentiated fiscal strategy – one for major infrastructure investment and another for recurrent social and security spending. But this strategy also implies that there is a limit to how much the current generation should pay for the benefit of our children and their children, too.”
“Here, the additional subsidies for common illnesses and chronic conditions for outpatient care and meaningful discounts off subsidised bills at polyclinics and specialist outpatient clinics should be its central features. The additional components of both the PGP and MGP, such as top-ups to PAssion Silver Cards, MediSave top-ups and other specific enhancements, such as the participation incentive to join CareShield Life for other unmet healthcare needs, can turn on the fiscal position of the Government. This would also provide a sufficient buffer to allow each Government to look into addressing more unique healthcare needs of specific cohorts or categories of workers. They would include those that had taken up gig-economy jobs or, for example, to address the CPF shortages of workers who made sacrifices when the Government moved to cut the employer contribution of their CPF in 2003 to keep Singapore as a whole economically competitive. In addition, it is axiomatic that immigration is a permanent feature of Singapore for the foreseeable future. A permanent and universal senior citizen medical package would also represent a critical symbol of integration among all Singaporeans who hold the red passport, and it would follow that the eligibility age into such permanent schemes should be dispensed with. This is particularly so as about 20,000 new citizens are added to the pool of Singaporeans on a yearly basis. Mr Speaker, when the Minister speaks of "developing our people on a lifelong basis", this House should not underestimate the peace of mind a permanent and universal medical package can give not just to senior citizens above the age of 60, but to all Singaporeans throughout their lives.”
“Similarly, senior citizens who missed out on the more substantial PGP when they were between the ages of 60 to 64 in 2014 also feel that the eligibility age of 60 for the MGP is inconsistent with the PGP. To address such feedback, the Government should introduce a basic level of medical benefits through a universal and permanent senior citizen healthcare package from the age of 60. Quite rightly, the MGP announcement has led some Singaporeans to enquire whether our Budget can support such a package for our senior citizens. There is good reason to opine that it can. Firstly, the introduction of Temasek into the NIRC framework from 2016 brings an additional $5 billion a year into the mix instantly and about $25 billion across a 5-year term starting from this term of Government. Notwithstanding the greater spending needs of the Government that certain Ministers have raised in the past, going forward, the 35%-odd increase in the NIRC from 2016 goes some way to explain the healthy accumulated surpluses accrued to this term of Government from the Opening of Parliament in 2016. Secondly, with Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's announcement this year of new modalities of development funding through borrowing, does this development free up revenue to fund recurrent spending? If it does, it would appear that funding such a universal and permanent healthcare initiative for our seniors cannot be dismissed as dishonest, unreasonable or imprudent. Instead, it can and should be viewed as the key pillar of a strong and united Singapore. To begin with, the centrepiece of such a scheme should be aimed at alleviating the out-of-pocket expenses for primary healthcare, so as to address cost of living for all Singaporeans from the age of 60.”
“Mr Speaker, this year's Budget caught the eye for its strategic purpose – to build a strong and united Singapore. Singaporeans from different walks of life would inevitably have different ideas on how best to achieve this, with perspectives and views shaped by one's values and sense of justice and equality. To that end, the Workers' Party is no different. Apart from the strategic objective of the Budget, three statements resonated strongly for me, each albeit in a different context. These were: first, developing our people on a lifelong basis; second, taking care of not just this generation but our children and their children’s generation; and, finally, that the changes ahead will be deeper and faster. My speech will use these overarching statements to cover areas where the Government should consider and reassess its approach to build the strong and united Singapore that all Singaporeans, not just the Government, must navigate towards. First, "developing our people on a lifelong basis". Mr Speaker, on this broad idea, I will share my thoughts about the MGP. The ground feeling is that even though it helps our senior citizens with their medical bills, albeit less generously than the PGP, there are also quarters who conclude that it is pungently timed with the election cycle, giving off the odour of an unfair advantage aimed at the electoral prospects of the People's Action Party (PAP). Another feedback I received about periodic benefits like the PGP and MGP is the inherent inequity for some of our senior citizens who, by virtue of their year of birth, stand to miss out on a few years of medical benefits because of the interval between one-time packages.”
“As a core value of the SAF, there should be no doubt that the SAF takes this safety seriously precisely because we are a largely conscripted force. There are potential safety gaps that need to be considered and improvements which need to be made. I hope that these can be swiftly and thoughtfully instituted with the professionalism the SAF is known for, so that Singaporeans can rest easy knowing our military women and men are operationally-ready to keep Singapore safe and secure at all times.”
“It would follow that a Court of law should be left to determine whether MINDEF or the commander in question must be held liable. In many ways, Mr Deputy Speaker, such a legislative change would represent an important bellwether for the evolution of training safety management in the SAF more than 50 years after the introduction of NS. But the significance of this proposal to tweak section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act does not lie in the fact that MINDEF or and any irresponsible commander can be sued. Paradoxically, in fact, such a change – legislatively determined – would serve to protect the institution of NS by making it more accountable instead of undermining it. It would buttress public confidence in the importance of NS, why safety is critical, and the lengths MINDEF and any Government of the day would go to, to protect the institution, even if it means putting MINDEF's own reputation and that of its commanders on the line. In doing so, MINDEF would send a clear and unambiguous message, which is, that the buck stops at the top. To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, whenever any soldier falls, we all feel a collective pain, for a life that holds so much hope and promise. We also share in the loss of their family members who live with the grief and regret of losing a son or daughter in peacetime and in service of the nation. But the question in the wake of the training deaths experienced by the SAF over the last 17 months and the years before that, is whether this House can assure mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and loved ones that SAF personnel will be safe when they enlist for NS, when they are called up for ICT or when they serve the SAF. The answer must be an unequivocal yes.”
“The argument that removing the right of a soldier to sue MINDEF would weaken the SAF or cause commanders to hesitate to push their troops must be broadly reconsidered against armies which have removed similar laws. The United Kingdom, for example, has done so, and their military is not just involved in peacetime training, but significant combat operations. To drive home the centrality of safety for the SAF's peacetime mission, there is room for the Government to inject greater accountability into its protocols and processes by creating a specific carve-out for willful disregard of safety factors under section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act. Such an exception would cease to extend immunity to MINDEF or to a negligent commander in the event of an egregious breach of safety. My colleague Mr Dennis Tan had raised this proposal in 2016 following the tragic death of Private (PTE) Dominique Sarron Lee. The Minister responded by suggesting that the removal of immunity may compromise training and prejudice commanders who, for example, push their soldiers to complete their Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) or strive for higher performance. To address such legitimate concerns, a possible exception to section 14 on the grounds of training safety would only apply if a commander behaves recklessly, maliciously or displays a willful disregard for safety considerations. For example, if a commander had deliberately chosen to cancel a safety briefing, disregarded training safety regulations, had not catered for sufficient rest before or between training and missions without adequate reason or risk mitigation approved beforehand by a more senior commander, then the blanket immunity provided under section 14 should not apply.”