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 28 of 36.
“Mdm Speaker, I would just like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State the early suggestion of the AGO doing rotational audits at various Town Councils, would the Ministry consider that as a way to improve the current Town Council governance structure?”
“Mdm Speaker, I would not belabour this point. Yes, it is good to know that Minister of State Janil recognises that there was a delay for both different occasions, but the fact remains that the reason why those accounts were withdrawn was because Pasir Ris-Punggol said there were some problems with them. And in the right spirit, I believe we told the auditors: "Come, let's sit down. Let's talk about it then". [ Interruption] So, I am not sure what is so objectionable to the Minister of State Janil.”
“Yes, Mdm Speaker, I recognise that but Mr Charles Chong has made certain insinuations which have to be corrected in the public interest. With regard to the comments made about financial statements which had been given to PRPGTC but then taken back by AHTC, the first set of accounts putting up the position of Punggol East SMC was handed over to Pasir Ris Punggol on 27 September 2016. This was then clarified. There were issues in there which PRPGTC wanted to meet AHTC to clarify. We did arrange for a meeting and our auditor actually met with officials from PRPGTC on 14 November. I am a bit surprised to hear about these, almost complaints about "Look, the money has not been given" and so forth. I would like to remind Mr Charles Chong that the final instalment from PRPGTC to AHTC in 2013 after the by-election of 2013 was made in September 2014. It is not very much longer than the final transfer that we have just made yesterday.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would just like to clarify, when the Member refers to the letter of demand, is he referring to it in the legal sense of the word? Secondly, can the Member clarify what was the total amount that has been transferred to PRPGTC for Punggol East SMC in sinking funds by AHTC?”
“With regard to the reply to the first question, the point remains that it was open to Mr Zainal Sapari to write to me and he chose not to. On the second point, I believe that the final transfer of the sinking funds or outstanding funds to AHTC was made in September 2014, some one-and-a-half years after the by-election in Punggol East SMC. I believe the deadline is not too different from the final transfer or final instalment made by AHTC to PRPGTC.”
“Can I just ask Mr Zainal Sapari, Ms Sylvia Lim asked him a question when there were these alleged difficulties that he mentioned at the operational level, did he write to, at least, the Chairman, myself or the vice-chairman of the Town Council what those problems were, so that we could help him resolve them? Because my understanding was we actually tried to work as best as we can in the circumstances that we were in to ensure a smooth handover. With regard to the earlier comment made about some delay in handover of financial statements, eight and a half months and so forth, can I just ask the Member Mr Zainal Sapari when Punggol East was transferred to AHPETC after the 2013 Elections, when was the last instalment of sinking funds made by PRPGTC to AHTC? And how does that compare with the final instalment that was made to PRPGTC, as has been reported in the media today, I believe?”
“Senior Minister of State, I would suggest that it would, provided you can provide us with more details on how those independent investigators would be appointed. There is potential to review the position.”
“I will take the second question first. The 2013 poll polled 50 people and 41 of them wanted estate management returned to HDB. But to clarify, as I mentioned in my speech, there is value in having MPs run Town Councils. That position remains. It is not the position that the poll suggested. What the poll is telling us is that the public may have a different view about it and that is something for MND to consider. The Senior Minister of State's first question was with regard to the inspectors who, under clause 24, could come into a Town Council. I would suggest that the provision that the Town Councils Act currently provides for, which is, for an independent agent to potentially look into issues which MND feels the Town Council ought to, is potentially sufficient. Because it is working in the current context as the Senior Minister of State would know in the case of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. The key point is that if there is an independent individual, I think that will be a better position or better outcome for Singaporeans.”
“I do think there is much value in getting MPs involved in local politics and the nitty-gritty of constituency work. In spite of the different realities on the ground and the treatment between Opposition and PAP Town Councils, particularly as a result of the grassroots and, by extension, losing PAP political candidates to the People's Association, WP is determined to make the best of less than an equitable situation, managing it not with the cards we wish we had, but those that are in our hands.”
“First, it risks politicisation of the Public Service where MND risks becoming a tool of the ruling party of the day to fix the Opposition. Second, it causes the elected MPs to answer to the unelected bureaucracy, subordinating the elected mandate of MPs to the Executive branch. I would suggest to this House that there is a better way to move forward on this point while retaining the proposed oversight powers sought by this Bill that will, at the same time, preserve the central feature of Town Councils – the political autonomy of MPs. Those oversight powers should be in the hands of independent parties not linked to the Ministry or the Government in general. This is critical to preserving the Town Councils as a ballast to our democracy. I would take the point made by hon Member Dr Teo Ho Pin about the potential of introducing an independent auditor during the time when an estate is handed over, especially between political parties. I think that concept should be pursued. To conclude, Mdm Speaker, as late as 2009, a Straits Times report quoting the then Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that in spite of the Town Councils' existence, residents did not seem to take a greater interest in the estates they lived in. It was noteworthy that one public poll commissioned by the Straits Times in 2013 found that close to 80% of those polled wish to have HDB replace Town Councils in the provision of services to residents. In fact, the same call was made more recently in the public consultation on this Bill. It would be helpful if the Government looked into why many Singaporeans, or at least the polled Singaporeans, are not as enthusiastic about Town Councils in spite of its objectives, not all of which are necessarily objectionable.”
“Critical to the success of the Town councils is the protection of the MPs' autonomy, guaranteed as a political space for the MPs to work with local residents so that the same residents voting in the General Election can judge the MPs' performance. If we return to the speech of the then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong during the 1988 debate, he raised three important points. First, it was not the original intention that HDB become the management corporation for 80% of the population. Such an over-centralisation is undesirable. Second, when our people become too dependent on HDB, it will lose self-reliance and its responsibility for their own surroundings. In a sense, they will expect HDB to fix and do everything. Third, as such, to preserve the political autonomy of the MPs and self-reliance of the people, HDB should only intervene when there are hazards to public health, public safety and public order. In principle, clause 24 of the Bill is problematic on these three points by reversing and diminishing the political autonomy of the elected MPs in relation to MND, which overseas HDB. If citizens know that MND will intervene when the town is not run effectively, then whether the candidates standing for election are honest and effective enough to run the Town Council potentially becomes irrelevant. As envisaged by the Town Councils Act originally, voters are responsible for the MPs they choose to run their towns and represent them in Parliament. If they do not like what they see, they can vote under-performing MPs out at the next elections. MND having oversight over the Town Council does not mean just over-centralisation potentially but it also leads the two political pervasions.”
“In view of some fundamental disparities between the Opposition and PAP Town Councils in practice, WP would have approached this amendment Bill with the words of the then Deputy Prime Minister Mr S Dhanabalan in his round-up speech on the original Town Council Bill some 30 years ago. He said, "The question really is not better or not there is a political purpose. The question is: is the purpose a good one for Singapore? Will it make for a better Singapore? Will it make for a more stable and secure Singapore? Will it make for a better life for our citizens? That is the question we ought to ask." I would like to state for the record that WP is under no illusion that the purpose of the Town Councils Act is undeniably political. And since 1988, PAP politicians have come up openly to say so. So, that point has been settled. But the former Deputy Prime Minister's subsequent questions remain relevant today. To that end, WP does not oppose five of the six amendments proposed in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, namely, to promote and strengthen effective and efficient governance and accountability of Town Councils; to foster a culture of personal integrity and accountability for administrative officials of the Town Council; to ensure sound financial management; to promote better governance and to clarify the role of Town Councils in emergency planning. However, the introduction of oversight mechanisms and monitoring powers over the Town Councils that are in the hands of the Government has the potential for abuse. This will not necessarily ensure good outcomes for Singapore but rather politically good outcomes for any ruling party. Central to the working of the Town Councils are the powers of the elected MPs in relation to MND.”
“However, the transfer of power from HDB to the MPs and, I stress, grassroots leaders, is only partial in an Opposition Town Council as the grassroots are, by design, not part of the Opposition Town Council's firmament. This is because the Government cannot reconcile that an Opposition MP and, by extension, an Opposition Town Council, would support the Government's plans. It is also instructive that nowhere does the grassroots, Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) or the People's Association appear in the Town Councils Act. Yet, the grassroots were acknowledged as a conspicuous and central part of the Town Council system when the Bill was debated in 1988. This is because the Town Councils Act was legislated to serve a dominant one-party state and, to that end, Government-sanctioned grassroots organisations do not work with elected MPs in Opposition Town Councils. This remains a fundamental omission vis-a-vis the operation of Town Councils in Opposition wards. I have spoken on how the grassroots have a significant say on estate upgrading via CIPC funding in this House previously and I do not repeat those points here. The same can be said about the political control of critical Town Council management systems and software by politically influenced entities. One can just compare the amount of state resources extended via the CIPC committee through the grassroots in PAP Town Councils compared to Opposition Town Councils. Certainly, lesser taxpayer funds to Town Councils will inevitably lower the esteem of Opposition-run Town Councils with attendant political ramifications. While I believe this should change and a fairer system ought to take form, as a political realist, I can see why the ruling party will rather institutionalise the status quo.”
“Mdm Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as the Chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. Mdm Speaker, this amendment Bill does not seek to review the original objectives of the Town Councils Act that is on the Government's agenda. We are debating this Bill with a view to improve the existing Act. I do not oppose the objective per se but, as an Opposition MP, my experience is that Town Councils operate quite differently by design in PAP and Opposition wards and, as such, are inevitably judged by different yardsticks. The Workers' Party (WP) does not oppose raising governance standards for Town Councils, but we have specific concerns over the new Part VI A of the Bill which gives intrusive oversight powers to MND directed by political officeholders of any incumbent government, not just the PAP. We believe an independent entity of inspectors, not appointed by the Government, should resolve disputes if and when they occur between MND and the affected Town Council, a point that Ms Sylvia Lim will build upon. Let me reiterate. The additional scrutiny on Town Councils is not objectionable. It is the identity of the scrutiniser that warrants scrutiny. According to then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, there were two philosophical objectives behind the original Town Councils Act. Firstly, it purported to transfer some power from HDB to the MPs and grassroots leaders. It gives the MPs and residents greater power and responsibility to manage their own affairs and to participate in the estate's development. Secondly, because MPs will have increased authority and responsibility, voters will be more likely to vote carefully and sincerely to choose honest and effective MPs.”
“Thank you, Mdm Chairman. Just two quick questions for the Minister pertaining to the handout under Water Efficiency and Conservation. Can I ask the Minister to give us more details on the community project to replace the nine-litre water closets in low-income households? The second question pertains to the Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee mentioning that 70,000 flats are still eligible for HIP, in MND's COS yesterday. HIP involves the renovation of toilets, spalling concrete and so forth. Would the Ministry consider bringing forward the installation of some of the smart shower devices and these water-efficient water closets under the HIP umbrella, because that may accelerate the Ministry's water conservancy efforts?”
“This problem should be addressed with a holistic assessment that is not encumbered by conservation concerns alone but takes safety considerations and the long-term maintenance costs to the Town Council in mind as well. The current HDB requirement to plant three new trees for every one fell would ensure that Singapore remains a city full of trees and greenery. Handling Fallen Trees”
“Chairman, trees and greenery are an unmistakable part of the Singapore story since Independence. Many HDB flats built in the 1970s and 1980s today host trees that have grown very large and are an indelible part of the community. However, a percentage of these trees, whilst aesthetically pleasing and growing healthily, have started to host overgrown roots, damaging common property and increasing maintenance cost significantly, and also posing a safety hazard in some cases, especially for the elderly and infirm. However, removing a tree is probably one of the hardest things to do for any Town Council. My understanding is that HDB and NParks officers tend to err on the side of caution and would prefer to leave a tree in its place and take the position that a mature tree should not be cut down if that outcome can be avoided; and I can understand this position. However, exceptions should be made in selected cases and one occasion is during the HDB's periodic cyclical HDB car park upgrading exercises. A few years ago, the surface area at Block 601 Bedok Reservoir Road was upgraded by the HDB, upgrading that comes by once every 25-odd years. A mere two years later, the Town Council started to receive feedback about dislodged car park slabs as the surrounding trees continue to grow and their roots expand further, encroaching into the car park. Chopping off a part of the route by the Town Council contractors to reinstate the car park slabs and prevent slabs from popping up pose a high risk of destabilising the tree. As this problem is more unique to mature HDB estates, a parallel concern is the increasing number of elderly who misjudge the height of curbs damaged by overgrown trees.”
“Mdm Chairman, HDB rental flats can be a life saver for many vulnerable families. They also represent an important safety net for the children of rental lessees or their next generation. I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the flexibility granted by HDB and the compassion extended to rental flat applicants for my MPS cases who narrowly missed the qualification criteria and to single mothers and divorced spouses in particular. In this context, I have noted a small group of new rental flat applicants coming to my MPS with increasing frequency. These are foreigners who were either married to Singaporeans in the past and who have Singaporean children or, separately, low wage-earning Singaporeans married to foreign spouses. As the rule stands today, neither group qualifies to apply for rental units and many are told of this when they visit HDB branch offices. More generally, the Government has reported a rise in the number of citizens marrying non-citizens. While I recognise the limited number of rental units available for needy Singaporean families, the non-citizen spouses I spoke of earlier have a very close connection to Singapore by way of their children's place of birth or by way of marriage to Singaporeans. Would HDB allow such individuals to apply for rental flats? There is some policy justification in favour of this by virtue of the non-citizen spouse scheme which recognises Singaporeans married to foreigners can buy an HDB flat. But I am just referring to the rental market right now. I hope HDB would allow foreign spouses or ex-spouses to rent directly from HDB so as to allow the individuals concerned and their families to get back on their feet.”
“Just a quick question for Minister Ong. With regard to public communication on both the demand and supply side of skills upgrading courses that are available, does the Ministry have any plans to raise public awareness of some of these courses? The signature of SkillsFuture is so large that people do focus quite a lot on the courses that they can choose with their SkillsFuture credits, but on the supply side, are there any plans to raise awareness as well?”
“A community of Singaporean Social Science and Humanities scholars with specific expertise would, in time, also raise the quality of the standard of our research, staff and faculty in Singapore and promote a drive towards excellence. There should be no reason why the world's pre-eminent historians, sociologists and other humanities specialists of the region should be teaching in a university or institution which is not based in Singapore. We should aim to count as many Singaporeans as we can among such a group of scholars. Aptitude-based Admissions”
“Mdm Chairman, late last year, the Ministry announced a significant grant for research in the Social Sciences and Humanities to the tune of $350 million under the auspices of the Social Sciences Research Council (SSRC). I understand the first round of grant calls has closed to about 70 proposals and an announcement is due soon on the award recipients. I know that the grant focuses on big themes with a public purpose, such as social integration and resilience, building identities, developing new models of training and education and spurring growth, productivity and innovation. I would like to enquire, in awarding the grants, how does the Ministry consciously spread the awards between the Humanities and the Social Sciences? While these initiatives are significant, I would also like to know whether some of these grants would be available for initiatives that encourage or promote an interest in the Humanities per se and not necessarily the Social Sciences as such and, therefore, lacking in immediate societal outcomes. This might include historical research on the South China Sea, urban and rural communities in Southeast Asia, Asian literature and languages which encompass a broadening of the knowledge base of Singaporean researchers and institutions, thereby producing independent outcomes. Such work may not have direct relevance now, but they would be of consequence in view of our geopolitical realities. What such funding would also do is to generate significant interest among young Singaporeans who seek to pursue postgraduate qualifications to teach and carry out research in our local universities.”
“While I accept it would be more important for Singaporeans to utilise their credits carefully and thoughtfully, can the Minister comment on his assessment of the utilisation rates so far? In reply to my Parliamentary Question, the Minister also replied that it dedicates far more funds to subsidising course fees at the supply end to make them affordable, not just SkillsFuture credits, so that there are avenues for workers to reskill or upgrade. To this end, it was recently reported that the Government funded 920,000 training places in 2015. Can the Minister provide a breakdown of these numbers and which industries received the most and, conversely, the least attention as well, and what are its plans moving forward? In addition, does the Ministry dovetail newly subsidised courses with the various Industry Transformation Roadmaps (ITMs) under the broad strategic direction offered by CFE? If so, is the Ministry considering stepping up public communication to advise Singaporeans of the options available to take up courses for new careers and for those who change careers midway through their working life? Finally, can we expect employers to make a renewed commitment to hire Singaporean workers, even more so in the SkillsFuture environment where so much energy and resources are spent on upgrading the skills of Singaporeans? SkillsFuture for Workers”
“Mdm Chairman, when I spoke about SkillsFuture during the Budget debate in 2015, I noted that as SkillsFuture got off the ground, it would be useful for the Government to track the outcomes of SkillsFuture initiatives, especially for our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), so as to assess how the scheme has been effective in achieving the desired productivity increases and economic outcomes and to better track the real value of SkillsFuture initiatives for various industries. It will be inevitable that practical outcomes would be expected of SkillsFuture and sought after in view of dire warnings of machines replacing people and the requirement for a high level of skills to succeed in the workplace of tomorrow. The concern I have then and as I do now is that Singaporeans do not see a qualification strategy as being synonymous with the genuine skills upgrading strategy. To that end, the review mechanism to understand the outcomes of SkillsFuture is a necessity. As the Government has shared, SkillsFuture is more than just a movement targeted at specific age groups but across age groups and society and, therefore, it is also about the larger cultural shift towards lifelong learning. To this end and in October last year, I asked a Parliamentary Question about the utilisation of SkillsFuture Credits. It was reported that up to August 2016, over 80,000 Singaporeans had used them. This number was later revised on the back of a similar Parliamentary Question this year which raised the number to 126,000 over the course of the entire year. Can the Ministry provide more details about this number in terms of the types of courses taken up by Singaporeans and the age group breakdown of Singaporeans who have used their SkillsFuture Credits?”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Minister of State Chee for some add-on information that he gave with respect to my cut. Just two quick questions for Minister of State Chee. Can I seek confirmation from the Minister of State that the delayed broadcasts for Parliamentary Questions and Answers and Members' speeches will actually be reproduced in full and not edited when uploaded after Parliament has finished, so that there is no cut and nothing has been edited? I just want confirmation from the Minister of State on that point. Secondly, can I request that the Ministry be minded to actually consider "live" Parliamentary broadcasts maybe for a short pilot period of three to six months to understand whether there are misgivings the Ministry may have − and I am not saying they are misplaced − whether they are genuine concerns of the Ministry? I say this because I do believe that public discussion on policy matters actually would be improved and would be more reasoned as a result of "live" Parliamentary broadcasts.”
“I believe it will improve citizen-state relations in a significant way and improve public discussions about policy trade-offs and the understanding of Singaporeans about Parliamentary affairs. Greater Investment in Technology”
“For Singaporeans to be resistant to fake news, it must be sufficiently informed, and providing a "live" and open Parliamentary platform could serve as a key inoculant against fake news. Educating the public about their rights and responsibilities as citizens and voters are equally important and useful next steps. Specifically, I would like to ask the Government if it would consider live video streaming and a searchable video archive of Parliamentary debates. The digital revolution has opened many doors to provide such services competitively. In fact, it was noteworthy that the recent Budget speech delivered by Minister Heng was streamed "live" and available on The Straits Times' website. The absence of full Parliamentary question and answer clips and Second Readings of Bills appears contrary to the principles of open Government. No doubt, the delayed Channel NewsAsia (CNA) videos available online shortly after a Parliamentary session are a notable improvement from the past. I also note that the scope and length of coverage have increased progressively as well. However, current reports on Parliamentary proceedings by the mainstream media centre on snippets sometimes omit key statements, facts and context, and this depends on the liberty of editors. As a written record of speeches, there are also limitations as to what the Hansard can convey in a timely manner, given society's migration to video-based formats on our smart phones. I hope the Ministry can review its position on this matter and consider bringing "live" Parliamentary proceedings in full to our smart devices, in step with our evolution as a Smart Nation.”
“Mdm Chairman, since the launch of the Smart Nation initiative in 2014, much has been said about facilitating initiatives that allow easy access to information on state services. Smart Nation envisions a Singapore where citizens are empowered by technology to live meaningful and fulfilling lives. Such efforts will also include providing greater access to official statistics and information on official programmes under Public Service initiatives. In raising this cut, I use the word "smart" in Smart Nation with a non-digital definition in mind. At a time when poor information, misunderstanding and even misinformation and fake news are becoming increasingly prevalent, efforts that assist and allow the public access to primary sources of information so as to have an informed fact-based public debate are especially needed. This allows a discerning active citizenry to participate in governance and have a direct stake in policy-based discussions with fact and reasoned opinion as the order of the day, as opposed to wild diatribe and unsubstantiated exaggerations. No doubt, the latter will not be easy to filter out, given the open nature of the Internet and the information age we are in today. The Government has stated that it is looking at how it can reinforce its legal and regulatory hands against purveyors of falsehoods. But the long arm of the law alone is unlikely to engender a Smart Nation. Smart Nation must, at its core, understand where to find news that allow its citizenry to make informed decisions. Parliament is an important if not central conduit for information dissemination and can make a seminal difference.”
“Chairman, just two quick clarifications for Senior Minister of State Sim Ann. With regard to the lift companies under investigation, I understand there are a few more that are still under investigation for anti-competitive practices. When can we expect those investigations to be complete? The second clarification is with regard to the threshold before which interim measures are instituted against lift companies under investigation. I would suggest that it is not just the interest of the third-party lift manufacturers that the Competition Commission should be concerned about, but also the procurers of those services, like Town Councils, for whom lift costs have increased considerably. Their interest also ought to matter and I hope the Commission can consider that when they look at what sort of measures ought to be instituted against companies found guilty of anti-competitive practices.”
“The essential ingredients of instituting such interim measures are if the matter is an urgent one to prevent serious injury to a person or a category of persons or, secondly, simply to protect the public interest. It would appear that section 67 could have been employed against any lift company intentionally withholding the supply of lift parts under either of these two limbs. The high incidence of high-rise living in Singapore and, separately, a spate of lift incidents from 2015 in particular, brought home the point about the public interest in a very real way. Did the Competition Commission consider making interim orders against EM Services, so as to compel them to sell spare parts to competitor maintenance companies during the period under investigation? If not, why not? Not only would safety concerns and the public interest have been addressed, Town Councils could potentially have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to more competitive lift contracts. Secondly, on what basis did the Competition Commission deem it necessary to conduct a public consultation to affirm EM Services' conditions to supply lift parts? Who was consulted and why did the Competition Commission choose this method of resolution and not impose interim measures? Disruptions in Life Sciences Sector”
“Chairman, in the middle of last year, the Competition Commission of Singapore announced that it was investigating restrictive industry practices in the supply of lift spare parts for lifts managed by Town Councils. In its press release on the matter, the Competition Commission acknowledged that there could be cost savings for Town Councils should they engage third-party lift maintenance contractors for various brands as compared to procuring lift maintenance services from original lift installers. To this end, The Straits Times noted that the original complaint was made to the Competition Commission about EM Services, a joint venture between HDB and CapitaLand, sparking an investigation. EM Services was found to have refused to supply spare parts to third-party contractors. On 12 May 2016, some two years after the initial complaint, EM Services came forward to provide a commitment to supply lift spare parts for the lift brand known to most Singaporeans as "EM", to third-party lift maintenance contractors in Singapore. Following feedback from a public consultation, the Commission considered EM Services' commitments to fully address competition concerns, presumably concerns which originate from possible breaches of section 47 of the Competition Act. The long duration of time between the initial complaint and the resolution of the matter would have had potentially significant cost implications for Town Councils, which could have secured favourable maintenance rates from third-party maintenance providers, had a resolution to this matter being achieved earlier. Section 67 of the Competition Act provides for interim measures in the midst of investigations when the Commission believes a section 47 prohibition has been infringed.”
“Yet, 2017 marks the 10th anniversary of the yet to be implemented Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) between Singapore and Indonesia. As Members would remember, DCA was linked to an extradition treaty between both countries. In 2007, Indonesia sought to review DCA after agreeing details with Singapore, while Singapore insisted that negotiations were complete. All this resulted in a package agreement that was stillborn. In April last year, however, Jakarta confirmed that it was intensifying cooperation in law enforcement in lieu of an extradition treaty and was reported to have given Singapore a list of fugitives, for follow-up and assistance. In light of the 50th Anniversary of Singapore-Indonesia diplomatic ties and the signing of the Eastern Boundary Treaty, what is the Ministry's perspective of initiating fresh discussions on DCA in the name of renewed military cooperation and stronger diplomatic links between both countries?”
“Mdm Chairperson, at the recent Seventh Malaysia-Singapore Leaders' Retreat, Prime Minister Lee and Prime Minister Najib reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthen bilateral relations and reiterated the importance of defence cooperation between the two countries and to strengthen bilateral defence cooperation. A month earlier, the latest in a long series of the Semangat Bersatu joint military exercises between the Malaysian and Singaporean armies was successfully concluded. While it remains important to remember that such exercises were halted when relations turn sour in the past, the reality of the geopolitical environment today emphasises the importance of greater defence cooperation and not less, so as to improve bilateral and regional security. To that end, is the Ministry considering the introduction of newer confidence-building initiatives with both Malaysia and Indonesia, in addition to the Malacca Straits patrol, the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) and the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) and ADMM-Plus frameworks? In previous cuts, I have suggested pursuing the prospects of joint peacekeeping initiatives and training for international assignments. Is the Ministry considering newer areas for military-to-military cooperation with Malaysia, beyond those like the Semangat Bersatu exercise series, so as to take advantage of the goodwill arising out of the political relationship with a view to more durable ties in future? In contrast, while the political relationship with Indonesia is more complex, as a result of the politically diverse and more representative democratic terrain today, the military relationship appears to be an all-weather one despite occasional political turbulence.”
“Chairman, just a quick question for the Minister, and it follows from the point I made in the cut about the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) and the prospect of more consulates, more assistance for our businesses. I heard Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo speak about China and the number of consulates which we have in that country. Do we have similar plans for Southeast Asia and other regions of interest in general?”
“Closer to home, it was significant that strategy number one of the seven strategies arising out of the Committee on the Future Economy was to deepen and diversify Singapore's international connections and to press ahead with trade and investment cooperation. In view of this renewed strategy cast against a broader evolutionary geopolitical environment, does the Ministry plan to review its staffing requirements, both locally and in overseas Embassies and High Commissions, with a view to raising manpower? Secondly, in view of ASEAN as a central economic region for Singapore, and in step with the CFE Report's relevance to the ASEAN Economic Community, does the Ministry plan to open more consulates in ASEAN cities to further economic linkages and further develop our international trade relationships? Economic Ties”
“Chairman, to say that the last financial year has been a public education in diplomacy for many younger Singaporeans would be an understatement. The release of the Permanent Court of Arbitration's judgment in favour of the Philippines over territorial differences in the South China Sea was followed up almost overnight by an unexpected upswing in relations between China and the Philippines even as Singapore and many like-minded countries affirmed the judgment and rule of law. The Terrex episode, which saw nine military vehicles temporarily confiscated by the Hong Kong authorities, hit even closer to home. While the issue appears to have been resolved and relations with China back on the usual even keel, some keen observers continue to watch the signature of Singapore's military activities in Taiwan, even as others viewed the episode as a shrewd diplomatic ploy by China to make a point about the One China Policy and to signal dissatisfaction with Singapore's position on the South China Sea. I would imagine these incidents, amongst many others, to have taken up much time and energy of the relevant departments in MFA and the Government more generally. It is also worthwhile to note that Singapore is into its second year as country coordinator of ASEAN-China relations, a challenging assignment made even more so by a new US administration determined, on the surface at least, to take a hard-headed and transactional approach in its relationship with China and with its domestic constituency more paramount in the conduct of foreign affairs than ever before. More recently, the last few weeks have also seen the Malaysian government re-open the Pedra Branca case by way of an appeals mechanism.”
“Yes, Minister. If the Linggiu Reservoir fails and we cannot draw from the reservoir, would the water conservation tax go up because it is associated with not over-consuming water?”
“With regard to my suggestion about a differentiated tax regime to encourage savings among Singaporeans, in addition to water rationing that the Minister mentioned, would the Government reconsider how it prices water so as to encourage people to achieve real savings by conserving water?”
“Yes, Mdm Speaker. I have a few clarifications for the Minister. I thank him for the detailed speech that he gave. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister how does PUB assess when to increase the price of water because, according to the PUB's Annual Report, the net income of PUB − after Government grants and contributions to the Consolidated Fund and tax − was actually higher between the years 2013 and 2015, compared to between 2010 and 2012. Between 2013 and 2015, it was about $550 million and between 2010 and 2012, it was $339 million. Notwithstanding the improvements that are required for the transmission networks and so forth, some clarity on that would be appreciated. The second question pertains to a point that the Minister made in his speech, which was about the choice of building more desalination plants. How does PUB make that determination whether it should construct more NEWater plants, as opposed to desalination plants, because NEWater is obviously cheaper. Some understanding on that will be helpful as well. And to that end, two follow-up clarifications: is PUB considering a proposal which has been discussed in public before, which is to deepen local reservoirs to increase our own local catchment and the possibility of directly supplying NEWater which, I understand, some years ago was raised in this House and the then-Minister clarified that only one country − I believe it was Namibia − which transmits such water directly? The reason is it would save costs by just having NEWater supplied directly, as opposed to going through another processing exercise through the reservoirs. A few more quick clarifications, and I beg your indulgence. With regard to the Linggiu Reservoir, assuming that it does fail, can we anticipate a rise in water conservation tax?”
“For example, a household of four which meets the national average consumption can have their water conservation tax remain at the current 30% of the tariff rate. Depending on additional usage, PUB could establish an ascending or descending scale relative to consumption. This has better prospects for water conservation as real savings would be given to individual households, building on the current two-tiered approach between households that consume more or less than 40 cubic meters of waters. This approach would also be more targeted and would cohere with the objective of saving water as opposed to the Budget announcement which bluntly increases the water conservation tax from 30% to 50%, and 35% to 65% for all households. To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, a piece in The Straits Times last week argued that the water price only reflected the reality of increasing water stress worldwide and that bigger hikes were needed to curb wastage. The comments to that story were unexpectedly, rather animated. I believe a deeper explanation from the Government about how it prices water and its long-run cost imperatives would enable the public to better understand and rationalise this water hike in addition to improving public understanding on this issue. This would be important as the water price hike occurred on the back of many other municipal prices increases which could arguably have been better phased to reduce the impact on the average Singaporean for whom cost of living concerns are an increasing issue. There remain concerns among Singaporeans who fear the knock-on effect of the water price hike on daily necessities and I hope the Government will address this point too.”
“In fact, Singapore's per capita water consumption rates have been dropping steadily from 2005 when it was 162 litres per day to 151 litres per day today. It would appear that the answer to the question of whether we can reduce consumption without price increases is a yes − perhaps not as resounding a yes as the experts would wish for − but a yes nonetheless. Even with our hot and humid climate and cultural practice of not using dishwashers, perhaps as a result of the spices, sauces and seasonings in Asian cooking, progress on water conservation has been steady and continuous. Rather than to look solely at water pricing to promote conservation, the Government should look at new policies further tightening regulations on the sale of sanitary appliances such as mixers and shower heads which discharge excessive water, so as to nudge consumers to use more water-saving appliances. Some experts have also proposed pricing strategies used elsewhere like in Spain which hosts a price structure that provides for a 10% rebate should a household's water consumption pattern show a 10% decrease compared to the year before. What these creative pricing strategies suggest is the prospect of a different approach towards water conservation taxes to promote a more efficient usage of water. We already see PUB nudging Singaporeans in this direction by informing consumers of the consumption patterns of their neighbours and the national average in our monthly bills. What may truly push a renewed commitment to a water conservation drive is to significantly alter a consumer behaviour towards a tax regime that differentiates between efficient and inefficient usage of water by lowering taxes for consumers who use less water.”
“Can the Government comment, in the event Malaysia successfully diverts water to the Linggui Reservoir allowing Singapore to draw its full entitlement of 250mgd or more, would such an outcome end up reducing the price of water for consumers in Singapore? And if so, would Singapore consider co-funding the diversion of the two rivers or re-negotiating some aspects of the Water Agreement with a win-win prospect in mind especially since Singapore has not hesitated to supply Malaysia with more treated water than it is required to in its time of need particularly in times of drought and over the Ramadan period last year? This brings me to my final point about the public messaging on water conservation policies and the outcomes the Government seeks from the water conservation tax and how these outcomes can be improved. About a month before the 2015 General Elections, the Prime Minister said, "In Singapore, water will always be a precious resource. Never take it for granted or waste it." In the middle of last year, on the back of the Singapore International Water Week in a piece entitled "How Singapore Will Never Go Thirsty", the PUB chief executive officer announced that Singapore, in spite of being water-poor, had "significantly overcome the challenge of water scarcity" and later that "Singapore is not short on water". While I understand the PUB official was showcasing to an international audience the good work over many decades of our water specialists, there is a risk that over amplifying self-sufficiency can have a dampening effect on efforts to encourage water conservation. The fact is self-sufficiency comes at a high price for the consumer.”
“In the middle of last year, on the back of the Singapore International Water Week, a PUB official stated that should the Linggui Reservoir fail, there ought to be no cause for panic in Singapore as there were new and indigenous capacities in Singapore to meet such a contingency in the form of NEWater and desalination. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs only last month stated that the failure of the Linggui Reservoir would cause severe problems for Singapore and Malaysia. Can the Government elaborate what are its contingency plans in the event of such an eventuality? Do these contingencies include the possibility of another rise in water prices, especially the water conservation tax since its policy rationale is aimed at reminding the taxpayer about the importance of saving water and separately, to account for the LMRC of desalination and NEWater? That would also prompt a corollary question as to whether the latest water price revision was set with a view to account for the complete failure of the Linggui Reservoir. Even so, in the middle of 2016, it was reported that Johor was studying plans to divert water from two rivers into the Linggui Reservoir. The first proposal was to build a low wall to channel about 50mgd of water from the Sayong River catchment area at the cost of about RM$250 million. The second plan called for the building of a dam at the Ulu Sedili Besar River to transfer about 110mgd to the Johor River at the cost of RM$660 million. At the end of the last Leaders Retreat between Prime Ministers Lee and Najib in December last year, it was reported that Malaysia was looking at measures to increase the supply of water at the Linggui Reservoir.”
“In addition, the 2015 PUB annual report highlights PUB's collaboration with a US water technology company which has piloted electro-deionisation technology which has achieved reductions in energy consumption in the desalination process by more than 50%, and this pilot would be expanded in 2016. Can the Government share details of this project and its prospects going forward? Separately, Mr Deputy Speaker, the announcement of an increase in water tariffs bookends a two-odd year period when Singaporeans were repeatedly reminded of water scarcity issues as a result of very low water levels in the Linggui reservoir in Malaysia, a water supply source five times the size of all of Singapore's reservoirs. At the start of each respective year, the water levels were at 84% in 2015, 49% in 2016 and 27% in 2017. We have been informed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in response to a Parliamentary Question in January this year that there is a significant risk of the water levels in the Linggui Reservoir falling to 0% this year should there be a dry spell in Johor. In view of the low water levels in the Linggui Reservoir from 2015 onwards in particular, how often has Singapore drawn less than the 250 million gallons a day it is legally entitled to under the 1962 Water Agreement and what has been Singapore's average daily rate of abstraction from the Linggui Reservoir since 2014? To that end, what role, if any, have the low water levels in the Linggui Reservoir played in the latest water price revision especially since the Government's position as late as 2013 confirmed no need to raise water prices?”
“The sums were redone because desalinating sea water was cheaper than thought; and NEWater, even cheaper to produce." The same year, it was reported that the Tuas desalination plant desalinates water at the cost of $0.78 per cubic metre. This compared very favourably against about $0.90 per cubic metre produced by the Ashkelon desalination plant in Israel, considered in 2003 to be the one of the cheapest producers of desalinated water. In 2008, Sembcorp, which secured the bid to design, build, own and operate the fifth and largest NEWater plant, submitted a first-year price of about $0.30 to produce a cubic metre of NEWater. A 2011 Business Times' report also noted that Singapore would produce the world's cheapest desalinated water by 2013. How does the PUB adjust its LMRC projections with the advent of new technology so as to keep water prices affordable and to keep its profits within reasonable limits, on an on-going basis? From Parliamentary replies in the past, it would appear that energy is the real cost variable that can be difficult to track with a sufficient degree of accuracy. In view of the lower cost of producing water over the years, can the Government reveal how much NEWater and desalination costs have fluctuated over the years as a result of energy prices? In 2008, the Siemens Water Technologies Team was awarded a $4 million grant from the Environment and Water Industry Development Council (EWI) for successfully designing a more energy efficient desalinisation technique which produced a cubic metre of drinking water on 1.5 kilowatt hour (kWh) of power as compared to PUB's current desalination method using 3.5 kWh per cubic metre.”
“Can the Government also clarify if the maintenance and upkeep, and the associated manpower costs of current PUB assets, including thousands of kilometres of transmission networks and so forth, would have already been factored into the calculation of LRMC before the latest round of price hikes? Even so, it would be helpful to understand which variables of LRMC have changed from 1997 when the last price hike was announced, what is the range within each variable, and how often is the LRMC determined or re-determined? Can the Government also share how much it costs each desalination and NEWater plant to produce water today, especially since some of these plants operate on a private-public partnership basis? How do they compare with plants directly run by the PUB? Finally, when the PUB refers to the long run in LRMC, what sort of time horizon is used for projection purposes and what are the population parametres for these projections? Are we looking at 2061 when the Water Agreement with Malaysia comes to an end, or is it when the PUB expects a doubling of Singapore's consumption in absolute terms for a much larger population and when 85% of our needs are projected to be met by NEWater and desalination? If this is so, what are the projections for expected water price hikes as the population grows? It is noteworthy, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the PUB was able to bring down the cost of NEWater production from 2002 to 2004 from $1.30 to $1.15 per cubic metre as a result of more competitive membrane technologies. In 2003, a Straits Times article quoted then Prime Minister Goh assuring Singaporeans that, and I quote, "the price of PUB water, which now costs $1.52 a cubic metre, would stay below $2 for some time, reversing all earlier projections.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this year's Budget has brought the focus on cost of living issues by way of an increase in water prices amongst other things. This increase comes on the back of a 15%-odd increase in HDB car park charges, higher electricity and gas charges and the announcement of higher S&CC all in the space of about three months. The Straits Times noted that the Government feedback channel, Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH), had identified cost of living as a key pre-Budget concern among Singaporeans. I have a few questions for the Government to understand the decision-making processes around the latest round of increases in water prices. The last time an announcement was made to raise water prices in 1997, prices were raised by 120% for households and 30% for industrial and commercial users over a four-year period. The Government has stated in previous parliamentary replies that it prices water according to its Long-Run Marginal Cost (LMRC). To this end, the water tariff, water conservation tax and used water charges or waterborne fees are priced to reflect the cost of producing the next drop of potable water, which is, I quote, "is likely to come from desalination and NEWater." In announcing the opening of the fifth NEWater plant last month, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources noted that there has been upward pressure on costs because of increases associated with asset replacement, energy and manpower. Can the Government share details on how the components of LMRC for water pricing are computed by PUB and how it assesses when to increase the price of water?”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for going through some of the points I have raised. The Minister mentioned that there would be regulations drawn up to define how the Community Committee would assess the applicants. Correct me if I am wrong in this understanding. But there are two points that I made which the Minister did not address. One has to do with the National Service requirement and the second is how community work would be assessed. That is the first question. The second question: I would like to press the Minister on this issue of language in the case of a reserved election. For example, if a Presidential election has been reserved for the Malay community, would it not be difficult for the Government to agree that Malay, as a language, would be an expectation of any candidate who would stand for that election, up to the level expected of students in schools in the education system?”
“For example, in the case of Mdm Speaker, should the hon Speaker decide to stand as a candidate, what happens to the very existence of Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC which, by law, requires a Malay MP as one of its political representatives in Parliament? Should it be passed, does this Bill herald a new precedent in marked contrast to the scenario in Jurong GRC some years ago when the late PAP MP Mr Ong Chit Chung passed on? Does the Bill and the prospect of reserved Presidential elections change the Government's thinking on the question: will a by-election be called in a GRC when the minority member of a GRC steps down to contest in a Presidential election? Can the Government set out its position on this matter in light of the introduction of reserved Presidential elections?”
“Fourthly, during the recent debate on the Constitution, one People's Action Party (PAP) MP suggested that the presidency ought to be reserved for individuals born in Singapore. The Government did not address this point during the debate but perhaps it can today. Can the Government at least affirm that the PEC shall not issue a certificate of eligibility to any male candidate who has not performed two years of National Service? This would be in line with the reality that National Service brings Singaporeans of all races together towards a common purpose and would serve as an important foundation for the life experience of any future President. Fifthly, Mdm Speaker, I take the position that because minority candidates are likely to be few to begin with, many candidates are likely to enter Presidential elections through the public sector track or public sector deliberative track rather than the more stringent private sector track with its $500 million threshold. This may render hollow the Government's claims that it is not relaxing the criteria to make it easier for minorities to assume the presidency as a result of the latest constitutional changes. If so, the more accurate statement would be that the stringent private sector requirements simply do not apply for public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates, minority or otherwise. What this point does reiterate however, is the importance of the Government sharing what criteria would be used by PEC to determine if a public sector deliberative track minority candidate qualifies for candidature as President in the first place. Finally, the idea of race poses other considerations in certain cases of reserved elections involving public sector track or public sector deliberative track candidates.”
“On that note, has the Government deliberated whether the background of an aspiring President's spouse is a factor for the Community Committee's consideration in assessing whether that applicant is a member of a particular community? For example, in the case of an interracial marriage, what if the spouse of the applicant does not see himself or herself to be part of the Indian community whereas the aspiring Presidential candidate does? What if a spouse has converted to Islam in order to marry but does not partake in the practices of the faith? Mdm Speaker, these questions are central to the symbolic role of the President as a unifier of the country and even more so after the Government has determined that some Presidential elections ought to be reserved for specific races. Should there be residual doubts about how the Community Committee makes its decisions, the presidency could be anything but a unifying office not just for Singaporeans in general but the respective minority race in particular. A third aspect of the Community Committee I wish to clarify with the Minister is whether the Community Committee would expect an applicant to be active in community work and what this entails. This expectation has also been referred to by one academic who was quoted in the media as saying that if an applicant has not been, and I quote, "in the public eye, and is not active in community work, it is much harder to make the case for seeking election to the highest office of the land." What are the expectations of community service amongst the candidates and, if so, are the expectations the same with regard to all four classes of candidates, namely, public sector, public sector deliberative track, private sector and the private sector deliberative track?”