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 27 of 36.
“I seek the Minister’s clarification on how this new clause 3 will interact with the prospect of judicial review for individuals detained under CLTPA in future, in view of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Tan Seet Eng. While clause 3 does not explicitly exclude the prospects of judicial review, unlike section 8(2)(b) of the ISA, it is a fact that more, not fewer, judicial review cases are coming up for adjudication in our Courts, challenging the lawfulness of Government decisions. In recent years, these include questions on the legality of whether or when elections ought to be called in a Single Member Constituency or a Group Representation Constituency, the constitutionality of section 377A with regard to homosexuals, the constitutionality of the Government's decision to extend a loan to the International Monetary Fund, a challenge by some Hindu adherents on the banning of musical instruments during Thaipusam, and the challenge by a Sikh prison counsellor on prison policy covering Sikh inmates, amongst others. In concert with a more educated population and a greater recognition of the critical role an independent Judiciary plays as a co-equal Organ alongside the Executive and Legislature, it is unsurprising that more Singaporeans are seeking the avenue afforded by judicial review for clarity on public law matters and for the Judiciary to have the final say on the legality of Government actions. I would hazard that even the front bench recognises and agrees with the critical role the Judiciary plays as a feature of a good government and good governance.”
“As stressed by the Court, that was the crux of the CLTPA – the Government had to show how Dan Tan's activities prejudiced public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, something it had not sufficiently done in its original GD. However, what was somewhat overlooked in the decision to re-arrest Dan Tan was the Minister's decision to revoke the DOs under CLTPA of three members of Dan Tan's global match-fixing syndicate. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in a statement on 18 January 2016, stated that "the evidence against the three persons and their roles in the syndicate were recently reviewed, after the Court of Appeal gave its decision in Dan Tan's case." It would appear that in light of the judgment in Tan Seet Eng, the Government became aware of the poor case against them in law, putting the three detainees on supervision orders instead. To that end, the purpose of the Act and, more importantly, the separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary as it currently stands, would appear to be operating effectively, giving the Minister enough leeway to take decisive action against individuals who, in his estimation, pose a threat to ensure public safety, peace and good order in Singapore, while being in a position to clarify and apply the Act lawfully even if it means revoking DOs in light of the clarification of laws by the Judiciary. Quite simply, the system is working as it should. If so, what is the impulse behind this amendment Bill and is it justified? Secondly, the Bill introduces a new limb to section 30 of the Act, legislating that a decision of the Minister would be final.”
“Mr Speaker, the prospect of locking people up for an undetermined duration is incongruous with the rule of law. Should a state have such powers? Insofar as CLTPA is concerned, the answer has been yes for reasons that have been enunciated in this House over many decades, albeit not without significant soul-searching and qualified support. One important reason that underpins the qualified support for the CLTPA in Singapore through the decades has been the prospect of judicial review, which operates as an important safety valve to check against any excesses of the government of the day. The importance of judicial review with regard to CLTPA was publicly expressed recently by the Court of Appeal judgment in the matter of the international match-fixer Tan Seet Eng or Dan Tan. Unlike many extensions the Government has sought for this Act since then, the one before the House today includes a few fundamental amendments, which are very significant and extend new powers to the Government for an Act which was ostensibly temporary. At the outset, Mr Speaker, is an amendment to the Act even necessary? To answer this question, it is helpful to look at what transpired in the aftermath of international match-fixer Dan Tan’s short-lived release under the CLTPA after the Court of Appeal ruled against the Government and in favour of Dan Tan. Government critics focused on Dan Tan's re-arrest six days after the Minister cured the deficiencies in the original Grounds of Detention (GD) with a more detailed GD describing how Dan Tan’s activities had a direct relevance to public safety, peace and good order in Singapore.”
“This is a final supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary. I believe the question was not answered. How often are audits conducted to ensure that the information is secure?”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I just have three supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. Firstly, is there a more restricted regime in respect of privacy for data collected under PolCam 2.0 compared to PolCam 1.0 in view of the range of information that is collected? Secondly, how often are audits carried out to ensure that the information collected under PolCam 2.0, in particular, is secure and only used for the purposes for which it is collected? The third question is how soon is data wiped out under PolCam 2.0, compared to PolCam 1.0?”
“These comments were made yesterday. It was also reported today in The Straits Times, and I believe it was a senior official of IATA who made those comments.”
“A point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State in view of the comments made yesterday about the funding of T5 and the views of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) that T5 should not be pre-funded with taxes or a tax levied on passengers, for example. Does the Ministry have any position on this?”
“For avoidance of any doubt, notwithstanding the remarks in the Report on Public Consultation on the draft Cybersecurity Bill where it was stated that such powers are to be applied in a calibrated manner and, more importantly, in response to major cybersecurity incidents against non-CIIs, can the Minister confirm the envisaged threshold of what qualifies as a major incident, so that the House is reassured that the Commissioner's powers will be used very judiciously and not against Government critics and individuals? Coming back to the Uber example, does the Government foresee using such powers against foreign companies that operate in Singapore? To conclude, Mr Speaker, I am concerned about how much Singaporeans are actually aware of their online signature and the importance of cybersecurity. While we seek to protect key infrastructure against cyberattacks, every Singaporean, who uses his or her smartphone to pay for goods and services or uses it as a social engagement tool, is susceptible to cyberattack or hacking. This prospect is likely to increase as Singapore undertakes its Smart Nation drive with more focus and coordination. The CSA is in a privileged position to educate Singaporeans on security tips as we transition to a more cashless economy and live online, as many of us already do. What measures can Singaporeans look forward from the Government to protect them from cybersecurity threats in our Smart Nation journey? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support this Bill.”
“As the Bill imposes a duty on owners of CII to report incidents, can the Minister give the House a general sense, with examples of the specific thresholds of hypothetical incidents which may require reporting under the Bill. With this as a backdrop, can the Minister also share with Parliament what punishment would be effected by this Bill against a company like Uber – assuming it is a CII – which caused the compromise of personal information, such as names, email addresses and personal contact numbers, of close to 380,000 Singaporeans and tried to conceal the same, as reported in November last year? How far does this Bill go to take a CII owner to task for non-reporting should a similar Uber-like episode occur after this Bill becomes law? What other actions would the Government consider against entities that are negligent in securing their computer systems, particularly if such an incident is aggravated through willful concealment? Fourthly, clause 19 of the Bill gives extraordinarily broad powers to the Commissioner of Cybersecurity and his officers to investigate cybersecurity threats and incidents against companies, entities and even individuals with respect to any computer or computer system in Singapore, not just CIIs. The ambit of these powers is best exemplified by clause 19(1)(a) of the Bill, which gives the Commissioner and any authorised officer the power to remove or make copies of a hard disk, for example, even if it is only to assess the impact or potential impact of a cybersecurity threat. Non-compliance carries with it a fine of up to $5,000 and/or an imprisonment term of up to six months.”
“Separately, in light of the feedback received, how common are such hybrid arrangements amongst public and private sector CII owners and is the Ministry concerned that some entities may seek to locate some elements of their CII overseas to hedge against the reach of the Act and, as a consequence, compromise its regulatory reach? I have a similar clarification with regard to ownership of a CII, particularly if the owner is an offshore entity or individual. What regulatory oversight will the Bill realistically have over CII owners who operate outside our jurisdiction, and would this not represent a loophole? Secondly, I seek some clarity on the compliance costs that are likely to result for both public and private sector entities as a result of this Bill. Feedback on such costs were received by the Ministry and there was a suggestion that grants should be extended to help organisations offset these costs. Can the Minister give us some sense or an estimate of the dollar value of the compliance costs of the Cybersecurity Bill with regard to, for example, CIIs in sectors referred to in Schedule 1 of the Bill – perhaps those covering the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and some public hospitals? Finally, how much would be set aside in the Budget for grants arising out of an increase in such compliance costs? Thirdly, I understand from feedback to the Ministry that there was some concern about what constituted a significant security incident. The language of the Bill in clause 14 focuses on prescribed incidents suggesting that subsidiary legislation will clarify such words and terms.”
“Mr Speaker, this is a significant Bill which establishes a framework for the oversight and maintenance of cybersecurity in Singapore. Its ambit and reach are understandably wide in view of the reliance both the public and private sectors, including individuals, place on computer programmes, systems and services, and the devastating prospect of debilitating cyberattacks on critical sectors of the economy. More specifically, the loss or exposure of private information may also erode trust in the Government, statutory agencies and private companies as the release of such information in the public realm can seldom ever be completely reversed. I understand the Bill has received significant feedback from industry with an excess of 60 companies, many of them large corporates, and separately, a healthy number of industry associations – not forgetting civic-conscious and interested individuals – providing feedback to the Ministry on this Bill. For that reason, my clarifications will be limited to the Bill's broad principles and impulse, centring on queries that pertain to the operation of the envisaged Cybersecurity Act in practice. The first clarification pertains to clause 7 of the Bill covering companies and entities that host CII that are partly located overseas for business reasons or simply logistical convenience. As a part of a Singaporean entity's CII ecosystem may be located overseas, how does the Bill ensure that this bifurcation does not render a particular CII susceptible to compromise or cyberattacks since CII computers and computer systems based overseas are not covered by this Bill?”
“I note the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I think the specific issue was with reference to an article in The Straits Times on 20 January 2018 referring to a public petition that was conducted for the purposes of the Sungei Road Flea Market. It was organised without a permit, and the Police did not intervene in that case. So, the point of the supplementary question really was to understand how the Police assesses when a permit is required and when it is not required.”
“I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I have just one supplementary question. Can he please share details on how the Police exercises its discretion in requiring some calls for signatures for the purposes of a petition to go ahead without a permit, while requiring a permit in other instances, and I am referring to episodes outside of the Speakers' Corner.”
“I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like a bit more information on this licensing regime that the Minister spoke about. Because it does appear that in spite of these fines that have been given to the BSOs, there is still a long way to go in terms of ensuring that the bicycles are not causing disamenity to members of the public. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State is there a regime which LTA imposes on the BSOs to clear bicycles expeditiously? I think there is currently a four-hour timeline where they have to remove the bicycles. However, many of them still cannot make that timeline. In relation to my Parliamentary Question, even though Town Councils have signed the MOU with LTA, the reality is Town Council officers or property officers do not have that much leeway of time to go around looking for these bicycles and then monitoring whether they are cleared within four hours or not. Is LTA going to look at the prospect of requiring the BSOs to intensify their efforts to pick up illegally or indiscriminately parked bikes? Because they are profit-making entities after all.”
“The Senior Minister of State said that the question really pertained to the nature of the board's oversight over that contract. If, indeed, they had knowledge or they were involved in that contract, what was the nature of their oversight and their culpability in the bribery scheme and, specifically, is this something that CPIB or the Public Prosecutor is looking into?”
“My final question pertains to the matter of the identities of the individuals identified in the DPA. There is a dissonance between what the public reads in the newspapers for individuals who are being investigated, for example, the General Manager of Ang Mo Kio Town Council. No charges, I understand, have been preferred against him yet, but his identity, his name, is well-known to the public. How does the Minister reconcile that with the non-disclosure of the names of the individuals involved in the Keppel matter?”
“Sir, I have five questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first question is, in view of the Government's status as the largest single shareholder of Keppel, will Temasek Holdings call for an extraordinary general meeting with a view to pursue civil action against board members and senior executives found responsible for the bribery scheme for breach of fiduciary duties and to seek equitable compensation from those responsible? The second question pertains to the questionable P-61 contract which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. It would have likely required board approval for it to be approved. Is the Government aware whether the Keppel board gave the CEO broad powers to enter into the contract? If not, what is the nature of the board's oversight and their culpability in the bribery scheme? Is this something the Public Prosecutor or CPIB is going to look into, or is this a matter for shareholders to consider? Thirdly, in its information release, the US DOJ shared that a KOM subsidiary in Singapore paid the bribes amounting to $17-odd million into an entity based in Miami, Florida. What is the name of this subsidiary? This is only a question of fact. And who are the officers of this subsidiary? Fourthly, a former Keppel CEO and Senior Adviser, Mr Choo Chiau Beng, was the Singapore Ambassador to Brazil from 2004 till 2016, I believe. Was Mr Choo removed as Ambassador because of his involvement or knowledge of the bribery scheme and, if so − and I stress, if so − which month or year did the Government first come to know of Mr Choo's involvement? Finally, is CPIB or the Public Prosecutor investigating whether Mr Choo used his position as Ambassador to dishonestly assist Keppel secure contracts corruptly in Brazil?”
“I thank the Second Minister for Finance for his reply. I refer to the latest Estimates Committee Report where it was made known that about 313,000 PIC cash payouts have been submitted over the years and 98,000 – almost one third of them – were selected for review and, out of that number, 64% of the claims were rejected upfront. The reply from MOF to the Estimates Committee also stated that for the remaining 215,000 PIC claims, I quote, "they may be selected for review based on other factors". Are there any additional factors that IRAS specifically considers for claims which fall outside their usual risk-based approach? From the reading of MOF's reply to the Estimates Committee, it appears that more review is going to be done for claims which were not originally audited.”
“The Minister spoke of embedding LTA staff in SMRT, specifically audit compliance inspectors, to assist in maintenance. So, can I ask the Minister whether these inspectors could have uncovered some of the lapses that happened post-COI and, more specifically, with regard to the unfortunate flooding incident?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the extensive reply. After the Committee of Inquiry's (COI) Report which was released in the aftermath of the two train incidents on 15 and 17 December 2011, a number of recommendations were actually made to SMRT and LTA. One of which was calling for a profound transformation of the maintenance regime at SMRT. There was a requirement for LTA to impose and implement a maintenance management system audit on SMRT and for SMRT to perform a self-assessment every three to four years. So, my first question to the Minister is: was this self-assessment actually carried out? There were a number of other recommendations, one of which was to review documentary and record keeping to ensure a higher level of accuracy and reliability. Specifically, with regard to that recommendation, what did SMRT do which could have actually avoided the issue of falsification even though, I hope, it only involved a small number of staff? In the aftermath of the COI, of course, there were some operational issues that came up. I think the most tragic was the death of the two SMRT workers. We had an anonymous source quoted in The Straits Times who shared that the train wheels were not grounded as per the maintenance regime. This was revealed only a few days ago. And, of course, the amnesty announcement by SMRT is likely to uncover a few more lapses. In light of this, can I ask the Minister, with regard to the audits that are going to be carried out by SMRT in the weeks and the months to come, will there be an independent entity overseeing these audits, what will be their nature and will their findings be made public? The other question I have relates to a speech Minister made on 30 May 2016 with regard to infrastructure maintenance.”
“With regard to the Government's four-prong strategy to improve career opportunities for PMETs, can I ask the Minister what have been the main challenges and limitations for the Government in pursuing new initiatives to improve career opportunities for PMETs, and what have been the downsides of the Ministry's efforts? What does it intend to do to urge individuals to take the Ministry's plans a bit more seriously?”
“To conclude, Mr Speaker, for tolerance to flourish, we must take the initiative as Singaporeans to learn more about and increase our knowledge and understanding of one another's faiths and practices. This process must come from the bottom up, from within each Singaporean, and it is just as important as any movement to prepare Singapore for a terrorist attack. In doing so, we will unwittingly but crucially facilitate a deeper and more respectful understanding of one another and, by extension, strengthen our social bonds and the quality of our multiracialism. Such an outcome will not only serve to inoculate Singapore against the negative fallout of a terrorist attack, it will represent the sort of society we strive to be and determine the Singapore we wish to leave behind for our children and our children's children.”
“A can-do spirit, a positive work ethic and a common sense of mission aligned with the needs of your company or organisation can actually play a pivotal role in teaching racists about the futility and irrelevance of holding on to racist attitudes. Some Singaporeans might have to leave a job because of latent or even perceived discrimination, but whatever the bad experience, leave the prejudice or the racism you have experienced behind too, for not all five fingers are the same. Mr Speaker, it is clear a certain degree of tolerance is critical to living in a multiracial society like Singapore. It is a testimony to Singaporeans and the sort of people we have moulded ourselves to become over the last 50 years, that we have come to live in peace with one another in spite of the occasional hiccup, which is not unusual for a multiracial society. To that end, I see our multiracialism not just as a constant work in progress, but a glass that is half full, as opposed to half empty. To live in peace and harmony, it is imperative everyone practises some give-and-take and accept that for multiracialism to succeed and thrive, we must move forward with a live and let live attitude with respect to our racial and religious differences. On this note, I would like to acknowledge the real and optical comfort the presence of members of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) have communicated to many Singaporeans when they appear at various events. The Government should look at how the good work of the IRO can be further enhanced and communicated in newer ways to better reach out to the next generation of Singaporeans and represent the common grounds Singaporeans must cherish and protect.”
“They are usually innocuous, such as a shift worker trying to get some sleep or a student studying for exams, just as your Malay neighbours are hosting a marriage or your Chinese neighbours are carrying out funeral rites at the void deck or of your Indian neighbours pounding spices. Just as often as we hear complaints in our HDB estates of open burning of joss paper and the illegal parking of vehicles by congregants of various faiths at temples, mosques or churches which spill over outside, we also hear of neighbours who are comfortable amongst one another and can rely on one another in times of need, exemplified in not just the food or greetings they share, but the willingness to be race-neutral, open-minded and communicative, traits which are vital to living in a multiracial society. All Members of this House would have experienced this in the course of their grassroots work. I do appreciate that things can get more complicated in the workplace. But race or religion should never be reasons not to hire or to discriminate against someone. Chauvinistic behaviour, an attitude of superiority, an intolerance exhibited by superiors or co-workers at the workplace where we spend a large part of our day-to-day lives, will permeate not just into our attitudes but into the values we pass on to our loved ones. This damages the quality of our multiracialism and we must be mindful of passing on our prejudices and biases. In the same breath, workers of any race must recognise that we all must strive to do our best, not just in words but in deeds.”
“Such stories serve an important unifying purpose, as is the pursuit of knowledge on matters pertaining to faith in the context of a multiracial society. I do appreciate that not all stories are comfortable to discuss, but they do need to be shared because a sense of perspective, even if it is the Government's perspective, can be critical. Some years ago, but less so now, in the course of house visits, I hear allegations about the Government discriminating against the Malay community in the banning of the call to prayer or azan over loud hailers, a policy introduced many years ago. When I share that some of our Chinese friends occasionally raise concerns about the Government reserving land for Chinese temples within industrial estates, unlike mosques, which tend to be centrally-located within our communities and with good transport links, the conversations suddenly take on a very different complexion. Views which originally started out as outright discrimination by the Government start to moderate. When one hears the azan walking around Jalan Sultan today, one realises that there can be nuance to policy decisions. And there must always be scope for nuance in policy decisions. This is one reality of living in a multiracial country, the inevitably uneven nature of give-and-take in matters of race and religion, a matter to which I will come back to shortly. Members of this House would agree that HDB living and urban living in general, with the races co-existing cheek by jowl does increase the prospects of interracial misunderstandings to take place.”
“For example, a successful ISIS terrorist strike in Singapore falsely carried out in the name of Islam will test our social cohesion and resilience as one people. The Malay/Muslim community will come under the spotlight. Some extremist Muslims, particularly those overseas, may even celebrate such an attack, seeding more doubt against the entire Malay/Muslim community in Singapore. The ubiquitous nature of the social media will see some viral commentary which may prove hard to ignore, affecting the morale of the country and precipitating senseless reprisals, not all of which may be physical acts of violence. Avoiding the Malay/Muslim community and the desire not to have anything to do with them are equally, if not, more damaging, because turning on the Malay/Muslim community is the magic pill ISIS seeks to legitimise their narrative, one of oppression against Muslims. In the event of an ISIS atrocity, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, must stand up to defend and protect the Malay/Muslim community from vilification. To reiterate, to turn on any community, let alone the Malay/Muslim community, would be to blindly walk into the playbook of the terrorists who seek to divide Singaporeans and justify their cause. A few days ago, as the Workers' Party Members were discussing this Motion, Mr Low Thia Khiang recalled conversations with his constituents and friends of some Chinese Singaporeans being shielded from violence by their Malay friends and neighbours who invited them to stay in their homes with family members during the racial riots in the 1960s. We will have to harness such examples of our common humanity to get on with our lives in the advent of a terrorist attack in Singapore.”
“This must be so, and we must never relegate this first loyalty under any circumstances. To that end, I have observed ordinary Singaporeans, local NGOs and institutions, and even the Prime Minister in some cases, being openly supportive of humanitarian initiatives in some of the most politically tense and fraught regions of the world. The tragedy in the Rakhine state in Myanmar is not without controversy. But as a Singaporean, I was deeply moved to read of the Singapore Buddhist Federation and all Buddhist institutions strongly supporting the call by MUIS to raise funds to provide relief to victims of the tragedy. As a Singaporean, I identified with the call of the Buddhist community and it made me proud to be a Singaporean. Mr Speaker, a common sense of humanity is a very power adhesive to fortify our social cohesion and multiracialism against the reality of terrorism. And it is this common humanity that we will have to call upon to deal with the type of terrorism we see today. The advent of ISIS has inspired a new generation of extremists who find no compulsion using armed violence in any form against anyone. Catalysed by developments in the Middle East and the rapid advancement of mobile technology, in particular, the prospects of self-radicalised and outwardly unsuspicious Singaporeans joining the ISIS cause have infused a dangerous new dimension to terrorism. Well-equipped and well-endowed security agencies have nothing substantive in their arsenal to prevent a determined, lone wolf attacker from going on a knifing rampage or hijacking a truck and mowing down innocent people waiting for a bus, for example. This could well happen in Singapore.”
“Even though we are one people as Singaporean citizens, many of us host other identities and even biases, alongside our status as Singaporeans, regardless if we are a minority community or in the majority. In the 1980s, the ISD stepped in to prevent the Singapore Sikh community from taking their support through Sikh religious institutions for an independent Sikh homeland in Punjab too far. Most historically, in the war years, many Chinese in Malaya contributed and supported the resistance against the Japanese Imperial Forces through China and in Southeast Asia. Muslims are deeply affected when innocent Palestinians die in reprisal killings carried out by the Israeli state. While all these examples are not directly comparable, the point is that no matter what our race or religion, many of us do feel a deep sense of outrage when our kinsmen or women are bullied or wantonly killed anywhere in the world. The reaction is only human. But add religion to the mix, and feelings can cut to the bone. As a multiracial nation, we are susceptible to this reality of contested identities and even more so now, as our population grows in size and newer Singaporeans join our ranks. However, whether we are Singaporeans by birth or by choice, we are all invested in the well-being of this country, in all aspects. We have to acknowledge that we pay allegiance to the President, our flag and to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, a Constitution that makes it the duty of any government to look after the interests of racial and religious minorities in Singapore. And so long as we do, our first loyalty is to Singapore and our way of life, which includes the well-being of families and friends regardless of race, language or religion.”
“Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Motion. The spectre of terrorism has been with us for slightly over 15 years since the bombing of the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001. Many of us remember the shocking revelations of Al-Qaeda-inspired plans to attack foreign embassies and commercial establishments in Singapore with truck bombs, and the arrests of some members of the JI terrorist organisation in Singapore shortly thereafter. More than 15 years later, Singaporeans may be surprised to know that, even up to today, there is no internationally agreed upon definition for terrorism. One reason for this is the objection of groups and communities fighting for nationalist or separatist causes as a result of being disenfranchised or excluded by the state. In other cases, some communities have to face up to a state that uses overwhelming force to punish an entire people or ethnic group because of the acts of a disproportionately small number. We are already seeing this scenario allegedly play out in Myanmar where more than half a million Rohingya Muslims have been forced to abandon their villages, fearing more violence against them by the state. Such atrocities are fertile ground for terrorism, and some acts of terror undertaken by oppressed people do not lend themselves to simple understanding or even condemnation. At times, the reality of any multiracial country hosting different communities, races and religions, including Singapore, is that atrocities in lands far away from ours will affect our people and pull at our heartstrings and our identities, too. This prospect has taken on a whole new dimension with the advent of social media.”
“I thank the Second Minister for the reply. I know it does not answer the question; I can understand why because the Minister is not here. But just to confirm: this issue of the topographical constraints of Bukit Panjang was raised by the former Minister for Transport Mr Lui Tuck Yew in 2015 as a reason why it is not feasible to rebuild the entire line, because of these constraints. The former Chief Executive Officer of SMRT Ms Saw Phaik Hwa was also quoted as saying, "LRTs are meant to be simple lines and are not meant to make many turns and go up and down hills." It would appear that a design issue is at the heart of the problems affecting the Bukit Panjang LRT Line. And to that end, can I just ask, would this be a correct characterisation of the problem with the Bukit Panjang LRT Line and, if so, who was responsible for the design of that particular Line? Was it LTA or the winning tenderer? The second question I have is with regard to tender selection when the Line was awarded to Keppel Integrated Engineering (KIE). It was reported that KIE was the lowest bidder and its price worked out to about $35 million per kilometre. This was significantly lower, compared to similar LRT Lines made around that period or tendered around that period in Malaysia and Thailand. So, was that an issue?”
“Can the Minister share − apart from Singapore – which countries have contributed resources to the military effort in the Philippines against ISIS elements? Is Singapore's contribution part of a multinational effort?”
“Mdm Speaker, the subject of the Hotel Properties Ltd saga came up during this debate more than once. It is helpful for us to think about the mood of the day in 1996. There was an editorial in the Straits Times which summed it up quite perfectly actually. Just one line: "More important from the standpoint of a people's faith in their elected leaders and a nation, and its fair system of governance was that the conclusion was reached after an exhaustive process of investigation followed by a full ventilation in the House." The issue here is the accuser − and I am referring to Mr Lee Hsien Yang here − yes, the Minister for Finance is correct, these are accusations, aspersions. But who is he? He is not just the brother of the Prime Minister; he is a senior member of the establishment, whether we like it or not. President Scholar, Singapore Armed Forces Scholar, Brigadier-General in the Army, CEO of Singtel, Chairman of the Stock Exchange at one point, Chairman of Republic Polytechnic and a member of the International Advisory Board of Rolls Royce even. While I agree with the Prime Minister that these are just allegations, I am not sure that closure is something that has been achieved in this House. So, my question to the Prime Minister, if these allegations continue, does he not agree that damage would still be done to the Government in some way or another?”
“Minister, how is the Government responding to the on-going crisis in Marawi in the Philippines, something which has taken many in Southeast Asia by surprise? Has the Ministry's perception of the threat to Singapore from terrorism changed as a result of it?”
“Should any witness be contemptuous before the Committee, beyond hefty fines, Parliament is even empowered to commit that individual to prison for the rest of this Parliamentary term. Mdm Speaker, the longer this sad episode drags on, Singapore's reputation as a country where the rule of law is a strict guiding principle of our society and the credibility of the Government will be cast in very serious doubt. Like many Singaporeans, I agree that the matters surrounding the will and, like disagreements, are fundamentally family issues and should be privately resolved forthwith either through the Courts or through mediation. But it is the allegations of abuse of power that have to be decisively addressed, otherwise an odour will linger, one that will have severe and significant repercussions for Singapore's reputation. I do not believe a Parliamentary debate like the one we are having today will put the matter to rest, even as I hope I am wrong.”
“However, in view of the highly unusual decision by the Prime Minister not to clear his name in the Courts, the key question before this House is how do we move forward from here? Parliament can be a platform to look into and address the matter, but the choice of the appropriate Parliamentary forum is crucial. In fact, allegations of abuse of power by the Prime Minister may conceivably gain even more traction if the wrong Parliamentary forum is chosen. In the event the Prime Minister eschews going to the Courts to address these allegations of abuse of power even as more allegations are made and left to the people's imagination to ruminate over, I am of the view that the next best option would be for Parliament to prepare to organise a special Select Committee to look into the allegations made against the Prime Minister. Its remit would simply be to look into the truthfulness of the allegations and get to the bottom of the matter. In light of evidence being made available to it, the Committee can be expected to summon, if it so chooses, the Prime Minister, Mdm Ho Ching, Mrs Lee Suet Fern and anyone else to shed light on the allegations. I make this proposal for a Select Committee of Parliament in the public interest as I believe it is an avenue to put a stop to these allegations which have now moved beyond damaging just the Government but have damaged Singapore's reputation and the trust people outside Singapore have in its institutions. Many Singaporeans are unaware that the consequence of ignoring a summons from Parliament are severe and a defaulter can be arrested and brought before the Select Committee to set the record straight.”
“Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Mr Lee Kuan Yew instructed Mr Ong Beng Seng, the Managing Director of HPL and a key player in clearing the air, to confront the media about the propriety of the purchases by himself and the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Lee stressed to Mr Ong that it was not enough for HPL to release a press statement but that a press conference was in order. Contrast this important detail with the absence of any sense of closure on the allegations made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling in the matter we are debating before the House today. Finally, during the HPL debate, sitting MPs, some of whom worked for developers, were able to clarify the nature of how developers used complicated pricing strategies to market and sell their properties. The extent of probity and the affirmative conclusions to various matters in the HPL issue notwithstanding, by the time it came to an end in this House, MPs were in a position to triangulate various facts which, in totality, made it absolutely clear that no improprieties could be alleged by any reasonable person in the purchase of apartments by the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. In the matter before us today, can we honestly say that we are apprised and fully aware of the evidence and facts relevant to the allegations of the Prime Minister abusing his power so as to come to the same conclusion? Frankly, by the end of today's debate, Iike the MPs in this House in 1996, if we can say yes, then there should no lingering suspicions or doubts that the Prime Minister abused his powers in the matter of 38 Oxley Road. And that would be a welcome outcome for Singapore.”
“In 1996, allegations were made against Mr Lee Hsien Loong during the Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) saga. This episode erupted as a result of a public perception that both Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong had unfairly received discounts in their purchase of properties from the developer HPL. In that case, a Parliamentary session, procedurally similar to the one we are having in the House today, was held to clear the air over the matter. However, the circumstances and facts of that episode and how it came to be debated in Parliament were diametrically different in a number of important ways. Firstly, a senior civil servant, the Deputy Managing Director of MAS, reported to the Finance Minister about HPL obtaining a waiver from the Singapore Stock Exchange from seeking shareholder's approval for the purchase of property by then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. There was also market talk that Mr Lee had been offered units in all the properties developed by the HPL group. The Finance Minister duly reported this to the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong who ordered an investigation to get the Stock Exchange to provide a list of purchasers of two HPL developments, including questioning both the Senior Minister and then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who had also purchased two HPL apartments. In view of his investigation, Prime Minister Goh was convinced that there was no wrongdoing. Secondly, caveats were openly lodged giving the names of the Senior Minister and the transacted prices after discount. This fact was crucial, as a transparent caveat lodgment did not suggest wrongdoing by any stretch.”
“" When it was suggested to the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew by a reporter that it was tenuous to base a defamation suit on Mr Jeyaratnam showing copies of Mr Tang's Police reports to a rally crowd, Mr Lee said this was a matter for the Courts to decide, and that his lawyers had advised him to sue. As for Mr Jeyaratnam's offer to apologise without paying damages, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as saying, "I'll leave things to the lawyers. I have other things to do." In the normal course of events, the Government would do precisely that − leave the matter to be settled by lawyers in Court. Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling would expect to face multiple defamation lawsuits for alleging that the Prime Minister has either lied or been corrupt in his dealings. As this has not happened and in view of the political culture that I have spoken of, there are Singaporeans who believe that the allegations made against the Prime Minister may have more than a grain of truth to them. Many allegations have been made, and one need only peruse the document made public by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, released on 14 June 2017 titled, "What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew's values?" to remind themselves of them. I would expect the Prime Minister to make a compelling case today and when this debate closes, but until Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling are fully heard, doubts will continue to linger and this matter will not be put to rest unless a resolution is sought through the Courts. Until that is done, who here would dare bet against a new Facebook post emerging from Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling tomorrow? The Prime Minister has to go to the Courts to rebut these allegations of abuse of power in order to decisively settle this issue.”
“Mdm Speaker, Singapore has been a one-party dominant state since Independence. The ruling party has thus single-handedly shaped the political culture in Singapore. Our political culture is one that does not condone any allegations of wrongdoing or impropriety against the Government of the day. Accusers are expected to back up their claims with evidence and, if they cannot, they are sued. Millions of dollars in damages have been awarded when unsubstantiated allegations amounting to defamation and slander have been made against politicians, so as to preserve their moral authority. Many families have been besmirched by this. In fact, Opposition politicians have been challenged to sue PAP MPs if they feel wronged. As recently as 2008, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself said, and I quote, "I know the mentality of and the attitudes of the people in Singapore − and they know me by now, that if anybody impugns the integrity of the Government, of which I was the Prime Minister, I must sue….And I must demand that either the Court finds that those defamatory words (are) true, in which case, I am demolished, or there is a penalty." The anomaly in this matter before the House today surrounds the decision taken by the Prime Minister − ironically it must be said − not to sue in spite of the serious allegations of abuse of power, much to the surprise of many Singaporeans. Singaporeans have been sued for defamation for much less, one of the most famed examples being former MP Mr JB Jeyaratnam's utterance of the following at an election rally in 1997 where he said, and I quote, "Mr Tang Liang Hong has just placed before me two reports he has made to the Police against, you know, Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team.”
“I have one supplementary question. Why was it not possible for MOE to transfer staff and to provide resources to support the IP Programme to existing JCs, especially since the Ministry was aware of falling cohort sizes in 2010? This would have allowed the long heritage of some JCs which are going to be closed shortly, as announced this year, to continue to grow and thrive?”
“So, I would like to get some assurance from the Leader that that ought not to happen in future, provided the list of questions the Government has can be reordered somewhat.”
“Going back to the illustrated example, should Standing Order 54(4) remain, the same Motion would require at least eight more Members in the House, and that is assuming they intend to vote in favour of the Motion. To this end, some members of the public may draw an adverse inference on these amendments and there may be some risk that it will reduce public trust in the institution of Parliament as Singaporeans would expect most legislators to be present in the House at any point in time. This is notwithstanding the fact that Article 56 of the Constitution requires a quorum of one-quarter of Members to be present when the House is in session, failing which, Parliament shall be adjourned. It would be helpful if the Leader can revisit the spirit and purpose of the deleted Standing Order 54(4) in the first place and why it is this Standing Order was drafted in the first place, so as to pre-empt any adverse public opinion on this matter. The registration of my concerns notwithstanding, I support the amendments. I would like to make a second point, which is in reference to the Leader's speech just now with regard to questions which are postponed by Members and essentially go beyond the one and a half hours that are allotted by Parliament. Can I get some understanding from the Leader as to whether those questions will be accorded some degree of priority in the subsequent session of Parliament, because my experience in the second half of last year was that a question on the Competition of Commissioner of Singapore and lifts, with regard to lifts that are maintained by or managed by EM Services, was repeatedly postponed month after month.”
“Mdm Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank the Standing Orders Committee for its work. I seek some clarity on Standing Order No 54(4) which is to be deleted by way of these amendments. I would like to enquire about the original reason for this Standing Order which requires the presence of at least 25 Members who are supportive of a Motion when a debate is to be closed. It would appear that the spirit of this Standing Order is not just to ensure no infringement of the rights of the minority or an abuse of the rules of Parliament, but to ensure that there is a significant enough number of Members of Parliament who are present in the House to see through any debate and at the close of debate. However, what these amendments could considerably do is to create a public impression that the deletion of Standing Order No 54(4) supports the presence of fewer Members of Parliament in the House when the relevant question is put, bearing in mind that the deleted Standing Order does not call for a quorum of 25 Members but the presence of at least 25 Members who were in support of the Motion, a higher requirement necessitating a sufficiently robust number of Members of Parliament in the House. So, for example, if these amendments are approved and Standing Order 54(4) is deleted, it would permit a hypothetical Motion to pass should the matter be decided with 17 "ayes" and 9 "nos", as it would have met the constitutional quorum requirement of at least 26 Members. Even though the Constitution in Article 57(1) is silent on the specific number of majority votes required, in effect, the deletion of this Standing Order supports the presence of fewer Members in the House at the closure of debate when the question is put to Members.”
“And that prospect, should there be arguments made about the drug tolerance regime in Singapore, is scary and wholly unwelcomed. As it stands, the argument for the legalisation of drugs in Singapore, in particular, is not compelling or persuasive at all. To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, strict laws can only do so much, even if they host a deterrent effect. Stepping up rehabilitation is the right thing to do. However, in view of the new global approach towards drugs, the Government will have to significantly step up education about the slippery slope of drug abuse and drug abuse per se. In my ward of Eunos in Aljunied GRC in years past, I have worked with the Central Narcotics Bureau and conducted preventive education talks at our local mosque with the permission of the mosque community and I thank them for their support. At schools and tertiary institutions, in particular, we will have to significantly step up preventive education and to prepare our children and young adults for the world of tomorrow where access to drugs will be more commonplace than ever before and in our mindshare. The Government would also have to focus more squarely on the permissive attitudes that are hardening in favour of supposedly softer drugs like cannabis. There is nothing soft about cannabis. It is harmful to one's health and not every citizen will have ready access or support from family members to rehabilitative resources. As it is usually the case with illegal drugs, the poor and the low-income will be the hardest hit. We must all say no to drugs. 6.53 pm”
“As drug syndicates are put out of business because of legalisation, some of them, some drug traffickers or abusers, may paradoxically choose to target Singapore from the confines of other countries if there is money to be made here. Those who will fall foul of our tough drug laws will not be the kingpins but the couriers, many of whom seek to make a quick buck. We may also expect to see a rise in the number of marijuana abuses. In fact, a Facebook page titled "Singapore cannabis awareness" has already generated close to 4,000 likes. It makes a point to track changing norms about the legalisation of cannabis around the world, recently posting a story about the state of New South Wales in Australia funding the world's first clinical trial for the use of cannabis in alleviating chemotherapy inducing vomiting and nausea. This is not fake news, for such trials are indeed ongoing, but the practical effect of such developments around the world, I fear, will likely result in a more relaxed attitude towards the usage of cannabis. The rise in the arrest of cannabis abusers, as reported in the CNB's drug situation report of 2016, may portend such a trend. For those who believe that a more permissive environment for recreational consumption of drugs in Singapore would not necessarily be hazardous, I would say, be careful what you wish for. The research-based evidence is sobering. According to Lancet Psychiatry, in a 2015 article, which revealed annual and repeated cross-sectional surveys on medical marijuana laws and adolescent marijuana use in the US from 1991 to 2014, almost a 25-year period, it found territories which decriminalised illicit drugs or where the laws were generally permissive, saw an increase in drug abuse among teenagers and young adults.”
“What the global trends suggest, and I turn to the language in the Motion, is that Singapore will find it even more difficult to keep drugs out of the country and in the consciousness of our children and people, in view of the seismic cultural shifts in attitudes towards drug use for medical and recreational purposes in many jurisdictions around the world. Our tough laws will continue to serve as a deterrent for some drug traffickers but I am concerned we will find it increasingly difficult to persuade younger Singaporeans, particularly those who venture overseas for studies or business, about the dangers of drug abuse. The somewhat emotionally persuasive argument of medical marijuana in spite of a currently more established medical opinion will make this even harder. At this point, Singapore can and should stick to its time-honoured position of a strong anti-drug policy, in view of the still evolving global environment, our unique circumstances and because we have been able to get a handle on the drug problem and successfully kept drugs out of our schools. However, with a large population of foreigners, many of whom are transient residents, living and working in Singapore, and a significant number of overseas Singaporeans who may have a very different cultural attitude towards drugs, the argument for a drug-free Singapore may also increasingly come under strain. Nonetheless, we should and must begin preparing for a much tougher environment in the immediate term. This is not only if the research on medical marijuana turns decidedly positive for some reason.”
“" With the advances in technology, many Israeli companies are working to develop medicine that can deliver precise doses of THC so as to allegedly regulate its psychoactive effects, with the view to bring relief to those in chronic pain. What is repeated around the world where fierce debates about legalisation are taking place and have taken place, is the emotionally powerful argument that medical marijuana has eased the suffering of those in pain. It is also fathomable that the research into medical marijuana will have a direct bearing on the use of recreational marijuana for which precise doses could also correspondingly be marketed as a safer means of drug consumption. To that end, a recent Business Monitor online article notes that with the growing legalisation of marijuana for recreational use, entirely new industries for consumer-related companies will be created, including transport and through social media. It assessed that while medical marijuana will be an important part of the market, recreational use of marijuana will create new opportunities for consumer industries, especially food and beverage, with derivatives of marijuana potentially added to beer, chocolates and candy. What is likely to accelerate the legalisation of drugs worldwide is the potential of regulation and taxation, with recreational usage potentially effectively killing off the profits earned by drug cartels and moving them into state and corporate coffers. The challenge, of course, is setting the appropriate tax rate in many jurisdictions. I would hazard that the attraction of taxation may prove irresistible for those governments that have not been able to successfully keep drugs out of mainstream society in the same way Singapore has been able to.”
“Separately, late last year, the Thai Cabinet approved the proposal to allow hemp, a plant which is part of the cannabis family, but with lesser amounts of the psychoactive substance tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to be grown as a cash crop as part of a project to use narcotic plants for medicinal purposes. Prior to the Cabinet decision, Thailand's Justice Minister General Paiboon Koomchaya was quoted in the Thai media as saying that he was firm in his aim to remove marijuana from the narcotics drugs list and to treat it as a medicinal herb. The movement towards the gradual acceptance of some drugs, chiefly cannabis, for medical purposes is a powerful catalyst in the case for the legalisation of drugs. Even if medical authorities have not ruled definitively in this area and medical practitioners argued that there are realistic alternatives to medical marijuana, nevertheless, an international industry has already taken form and a stronger lobby is likely to follow. Late last year, the international New York Times reported that Israel has been a leading player in medical marijuana research as early as the 1960s and that 25,000 of its citizens today hold permits to use medical marijuana to ease symptoms of cancer, epilepsy and other diseases, with the number expected to grow rapidly. In fact, the Guardian has reported research in Israel will transform the medical marijuana industry into, and I quote, "a serious endeavour of pharmaceutical research producing new strains and drugs able to alleviate the symptoms of cancer, Parkinson's disease, insomnia and other conditions.”
“In 2001, an Economist article titled "The Case for Legalisation" argued that a legal market for drugs would be the best guarantee that drug-taking would be no more dangerous than smoking and drinking, even as it acknowledged that legalisation would not be easy. Fast forward just about 15 years and the first sentence of a piece on the legalisation of drugs in the same publication went like this: "The argument for the legalisation of cannabis has been won." In so far as global trends are concerned, the movement to legalise drugs is now effectively mainstream. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a belief that the movement towards legalisation is a western phenomenon. But such an assumption would be wrong. Closer to home, attitudes are shifting, too, mainly with a view to get a better handle on the drug problem and to undermine organised crime. The Senior Vice-Chairman of the Malaysian Crime Prevention Council, Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, in a piece titled "Consider Less Severe Punishment" in the New Straits Times last year, noted that despite punitive laws against illicit drugs, capital punishment and spending millions to address the problem, the number of addicts in Malaysia was growing. He called on the Malaysian authorities to consider "the road less travelled" and to decriminalise drug use and possession and to treat drug addiction as a medical problem. The writer also reflected on countries like Portugal, which adopted less punitive policies towards drug possession more than a decade earlier and, in doing so, had not experienced any significant increase in drug use, drug-related harm or crime, compared to countries with punitive laws.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, like most Singaporeans of my generation, having been born here and socialised to uncompromising anti-drug messages throughout my growing years, I have not experienced the reality commonplace in other countries where drugs are available to teenagers in schools, or in bars in university campuses without too much difficulty. Singapore's small size, tough laws and the dedication of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) to their mission have made this possible. But Singapore is an outlier. The reality of governments in other parts of the world is very different. At best, this has to do with being a larger polity and the difficulty in ensuring that the writ of the state extends across hundreds and thousands of kilometres, different political cultures, different social circumstances and different norms that govern individual freedoms and liberties. At worst, it is a self-evident reality that the world-wide war against drugs has failed. Whichever perspective one takes, these realities have precipitated a new and different approach now taken globally to deal with the drug problem. A major plank of this new approach calls for the legalisation of drug use, particularly in medical marijuana on health grounds and, in some jurisdictions, the legalisation of recreational drugs per se. As many Americans went to the polls in 2016 to decide between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton as their next President, a parallel vote took place on the legalisation of marijuana. This resulted in nine states in the US, including California, Florida, Massachusetts, passing laws that allowed for either regulated medical or recreational marijuana use. Today, 44 states in the US have legalised some form of drug use.”