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 29 of 36.
“What factors are assessed to determine if an applicant sees himself or herself as a member of particular community? To begin with, and in step with the Government's decision to institute reserved elections, the Government must concede that language is an important criterion that is intricately tied to race. To that end, does a minority applicant's language abilities in his or her Mother Tongue matter to the relevant community sub-committees the same way it does for Singaporean students through their educational journey? Would an applicant be expected to have passed his or her Mother Tongue at the GCE "O" and "A" levels? For example, should a Presidential candidate who sees himself as part of the Indian community pass muster if he or she can barely get by in Tamil or the other Ministry of Education-recognised Indian languages? Can the Minister confirm if language proficiency is a consideration for the Community Committee and, if it is not, why not? Secondly, the President's spouse is, for all intents and purposes, a customary but central part of the Presidency, reflected most vividly with the portraits of both the President and First Lady prominently displayed in all Government buildings. Former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, put it differently when he told The Straits Times about his possible candidacy in the upcoming reserved Presidential elections, and I quote, "I will be lying if I say that friends have not been asking me about it… If you look at the people who qualify, it is not that big a pool… I have got to think of my own preferences, my life, my family and my privacy. This is not a journey I take myself." The last point is worth repeating and it needs to be stressed: This is not a journey I take myself".”
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party opposes this Bill. The Workers' Party believes that Singapore is best served by an appointed President and a system that will allow the Government to appoint a President regardless of race or religion. One of the most significant aspects of this Bill is the establishment of a Community Committee which ensures that, in a reserved election, only persons who see themselves as belonging to a particular community for which the election is reserved, qualify to stand for the Presidential election. As the PEC and, by extension, the Community Committee's decisions are not justiciable in a Court of law, Parliament is effectively the last place for Singaporeans to gain an insight into how the Community Committee and sub-committees will operate in practice, and how decisions are made by these committees in reserved elections will be the focus of my speech. Clause 8(g) is scant on details as to how the relevant Community Committee/sub-committees will assess a potential candidate as to whether he or she is a member of a particular minority community. With the prospect of reserved elections for minorities, it should be reasonable to assume that the Government expects form to follow function. It cannot be the Government's intention that a bare declaration that a candidate considers himself or herself to be part of a particular community as stated in clause 8(f) would carry overwhelming weight for candidature to the highest office in the land. To this end, clause 8(g)(4) states that the Committee must be guided by the merits of the application by a prospective Presidential candidate. But what defines a meritorious application and on what basis will an application be deemed so?”
“Just a quick question for the Minister of State. Earlier, in his initial reply, he mentioned that the Ministry has seen an increase in the number of students across the autism spectrum. Does the Minister of State have a sense of those numbers? What are the numbers currently?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have one question and it relates to a Channel NewsAsia article that appeared after Prime Minister Lee's meeting with the leaders of the Pacific Rim countries. The headline was "Singapore to amend legislation to bring TPP into effect by next year". Can I just clarify, for the TPP-11 countries, is there any timeline for them to come to an agreement whether they want to proceed with an agreement which takes the shape or form of the TPP or not?”
“Members would be aware that not just Singaporeans but many foreigners, especially those who live and work near industrial estates, also use such devices. One key challenge would be to educate a large and transient foreign worker community of these norms. As with any transient group, the effort would have to be a continuous one. The effectiveness of this legislation on the ground will be directly correlated to the amount of effort that is put in to educate all users, Singaporeans and foreigners alike, of the codes of conduct that can be issued by the Minister under clause 24 of this Bill. This is not just the Government's role or the Government's job, but, of course, it is the job of all users. Mdm Speaker, my request for clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.”
“It would appear excessive to potentially jail sellers for failing to keep non-compliant PMDs out of the sight of customers. The same concerns are relevant for clause 31, which calls for a fine and/or jail term for advertising non-compliant PMDs. If this is indeed a serious concern, can the Minister share why it would not be a better idea to just restrict the import of non-compliant PMDs altogether, tackling the problem upstream, rather than having to deal with the problem at the retail level? Clause 33 states that a person shall be guilty of an offence if, at the time of sale, "the person knows that or is reckless as to whether or not the buyer intends to ride the PMD on a public road". This clause sounds practically unwieldy. If the clause would cover sales at any premises or place so it can be assumed that it would cover private individuals selling their used PMDs on Carousell, for example, how would the Ministry determine whether or not a seller is "reckless" as to the buyer's intentions to ride the PMD on a public road? Is failure to ask the buyer specifically if he or she intends to ride it on a public road considered an offence? If the buyer says no but rides on the road anyway, is the seller guilty of an offence because he or she did not question the buyer further? Clause 33 also states that it is not a defence for the accused to prove that warning notices were displayed in accordance with clause 31. If so, what would constitute a defence, short of a written agreement or an agreement that is captured on video? How many buyers or sellers would do this? Is the implementation realistic or practicable? To conclude, Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to govern the behaviour of individuals who use PMDs and PABs.”
“While this may be a matter of judgement and the Ministry wishes to be unambiguous about the seriousness of such violations or to facilitate uncomplicated interpretation, would not a more incremental legislative approach, starting with fines only, represent a more communicative and educative policy-making exercise so as to allow people to understand the rules more and to allow a passage of time to pass before Parliament determines whether or not to review the sentences, based on ground feedback? Such an incremental approach could also assist to reinforce a safety culture involving PABs and PMDs over time. Clauses 26 and 27 state that the proprietor or occupier of any land can be required to install and maintain signages at their cost and they will be guilty of an offence if they are not compliant. Would it not be administratively more efficient for the relevant authorities, specifically LTA and NParks, for example, to bear the cost of erecting and maintaining signages? This would also be administratively convenient as there would be a clear standardisation of such signs. If proprietors or occupiers have to purchase signages from officially-approved agents, would it not be better to have the relevant authorities just take charge instead? Clause 30 states that any person or business selling non-compliant PMDs "must ensure that no customer or member of the public can see any non-compliant PMD from inside or outside of the premises" or they could be jailed, for example. Would it not be enough for businesses to remind customers about which models are compliant or not before the purchase, which is provided for in the warning notices specified in clause 30? Anecdotally, the legality of models is a big concern for people looking to buy PMDs.”
“Mdm Speaker, this Bill aims to regulate the use of public paths in response to the popularity of PMDs like e-scooters and unicycles, hoverboards and power-assisted bicycles. While the evolution and use of such devices have been rapid, there is no doubt that a set of easily understandable rules needs to be implemented to govern the use of such devices for the safety of all. While I am supportive of this Bill and its objectives, I seek a few clarifications with regard to some of the clauses of the Bill and will raise them in chronological order. On clause 2, the intention of using the noun "pedestrian" in the Bill appears to separate fast-moving individuals from those who are slower so that the pedestrian-only path is in some ways protected from bicycles or other vehicles. But in day-to-day life, this may cause confusion, especially when skateboards are classified as PMDs while people on inline or roller skates are classified as pedestrians. People on inline or roller skates can move fairly quickly and potentially cause harm to other pedestrians as well. How did the Ministry settle on the definition of who is a pedestrian and who is not? Under clause 15, a potential jail term for riding on pedestrian-only paths appears excessive, especially if reasonable judgement has been exercised to ensure that the path is clear of pedestrians and the rider is not speeding or riding recklessly, for example, late at night or in places where there is less human traffic.”
“Mdm Speaker, a few days ago, it was announced by the Malaysian counter-terrorism police that they arrested an Indonesian Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighter who was off to carry out attacks in Myanmar, allegedly as a result of the atrocities in the Rakhine state. I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's assessment of the security situation in the Rakhine state and its impact on Singapore and Southeast Asia in general, particularly with regard to extremism.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for Defence for his clarifications. There are two questions. One, does MINDEF consider the details of the Terrexes' armour or any other technical specifications to be classified information? Second, does the confiscated shipment include any equipment or technology that falls under some export control regime or restrictions to China?”
“Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if the guidelines for NParks are identical to those for HDB? In HDB estates, especially in older car parks in mature estates, I am sure residents and Singaporeans appreciate the foliage and the cover that the trees provide, but a big problem is some of the roots of the trees will start to protrude between car park slabs, causing accidents and things of that nature. Under what circumstances would a Town Council be allowed, with HDB's permission, to replace that tree with one whose growth can be controlled in the long term, with the roots perhaps not spreading out so much, particularly for mature estates?”
“Mdm Speaker, just a quick clarification for the Senior Minister of State. Can I confirm if the Ministry has done a study with regard to the emissions from a biodegradable plastic bag when incinerated as opposed to one which is not bio-degradable?”
“Mdm Speaker, with regard to the handout that I distributed just now, I referred to "Checks and Balances under Option B". There is a typographical error. It reads "Supply Bill passed by Parliament/Key appointment recommended to President". It says "to President", but it should be "to Senate". So, that is the amendment: "President" to be replaced by "Senate". I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Teo for pointing it out to me during the break. Page: 81”
“Well, it would have to go to the Senate by virtue of the fact that that would be the process. So, if the government of the day wants to draw down on the Reserves, then, by its very nature, it would go to the Senate. But it does not mean that there will always be a four-four decision, down the middle. But if that also is seen to be problematic in the evolution of the Senate, then there is always the option of introducing an odd member to resolve that problem. But that is an easy answer. The real issue is, we want to allow the Senate to perform its role and there is always the prospect of having a chairman in the Senate to perform a casting vote. Page: 75”
“I think that really would be the remit of the Senate Elections Committee and the individuals that it identifies. It will have to put its mind to identifying individuals who it believes would be able to perform the role expected of Senators.”
“Well, Mdm Speaker, I do not see why those same individuals would be prevented from standing for senatorial elections. They can stand for the Senate.”
“Mdm Speaker, I do appreciate that when you go through the process of an election, there is some degree of politicisation. The same applies for the Elected President. The question is, do we want to preserve the symbolic and unifying role of the President, and by doing that have an elected Senate which we will, of course, have to persuade the public, "Look, these are my credentials, I am a Singaporean and I seek to play my role as part of a legislative member". Page: 74 So, while there will be some degree of politicisation, and I do concede that, I think it is a better situation than having the Presidency itself be politicised.”
“I think it is a fair question. The issue is, at the point, before the process becomes unwieldy, the Senate Elections Committee has to draw a line. And it will have to determine for the 16 individuals that it has decided upon who are the best qualified for that job and, after that, when it goes to the polls, the citizens of Singapore will whittle that list further down to eight, basically. That is how it works.”
“Like I mentioned, it really follows the mandate that is given to the PEC. But the main point is that they will have to narrow down the slate of applicants to the number 16. The Minister of State asked about the mandate, what mandate do they have. It is the same mandate as the PEC has today. The members are appointed.”
“Mdm Speaker, the way we see it, the Senate Elections Committee will operate very similarly to how the PEC currently operates. It will have to determine Senators for the purposes for which it had been constituted. It has to oversee financial matters. It has to oversee appointment of public officials and, of course, other appointments. It would be very important that individuals who can perform that role or perform some checking role in that regard and have the qualifications for that role, would be selected for that purpose.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for that question. We see the Senate Elections Committee really taking on the form and substance of the current PEC So, the same individuals will determine which individuals can stand for Senate elections and, for the same reason, those six individuals, we believe, would be able to put their minds to assessing who ought to qualify to be on the Senate. So, it is like the PEC.”
“Mdm Speaker, subsequent speakers would be pursuing this topic in greater detail. So, I do not really want to speak about that. But if the question is not answered by the WP Members who would speak after me, then I would be happy to take that question in the course of the debate.”
“Mdm Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first few occasions in this House where the person asking the question actually sits next to the Member who just made the speech. Let me try and help the Member and answer his questions. In the first case, as to how often we see Senate elections, we see them every six years. So, the Senate is elected every six years. The second question about the list, who would be selected to comprise the Senate, it would be on the basis of a simple percentage of votes won. The top eight become Senators. The final question was about deadlock. In the case of a deadlock, Parliament, ultimately, still has to ratify whatever decisions are made at the Senate. If there is a deadlock, then Parliament would have to come and make a decision as to whether to approve the Government's proposal or not. Those are the answers.”
“A weak institution that is structurally flawed in hosting different and contradictory objectives, weak public knowledge about the powers of the Elected President and, finally, an Elected President whose electoral mandate will be weakened as a result of the strengthening of the unelected CPA. This House needs to focus its energies on the path that the Commission has laid for the future of the Elected Presidency. Instead of rushing this Bill through Parliament in time for the next Presidential Elections, the WP calls for the Government to delay any changes to the Elected Presidency. The Government should do this not because it has been suggested by the WP or the Constitutional Commission in varying forms but to protect the institution of the Presidency and to create a more accountable and robust system than the one we host today for the next 50 years. 4.24 pm”
“Fourthly, the WP is of the view that the proposed constitutional amendments are major changes that should not be made with indecent haste and should be put to a referendum. The amendments to the Constitution that the Government has proposed are far-reaching and wide-ranging and deserve much more airtime where the changes can be subjected to proper and thorough public debate. Any changes made with indecent haste will expose the Government to suspicions and accusations that it is seeking to shape the terms and outcome of the election when the country is on the verge of the next Presidential Election. In the amendments proposed by way of the new Articles 5A, 5B and 5C, the Government has affirmed the utility, desirability and legitimacy of a national referendum in introducing controversial changes to presidential candidate eligibility. Given that the Prime Minister has acknowledged the proposed fundamental changes to the Presidency are controversial and potentially unpalatable to many members of the public, we believe that a national referendum on these proposed amendments should be held after an appropriate period of public debate. The public should be presented with a simple choice between the Government's proposed amendments and the WP's proposal as outlined in this paper. The two options represent the main ideas mooted by the Constitutional Commission, with minor modifications. As such, we believe the referendum questions should be marked in a non-partisan manner as simply Option A and Option B, as explained by Ms Sylvia Lim earlier. A simple majority should suffice to decide the referendum. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, should this Bill be passed in its current form, the Elected Presidency will soon host a triple-weak situation.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. We propose that a Senate be established within our Legislature as an Upper House to exercise the custodial functions that are now exercised by the Elected President. Eight Senators shall be elected from a list in periodic elections where non-partisan candidates will have to fit the qualifying criteria. A Senate Elections Committee will select the most suitable 16 candidates to stand for the Senate election. Properly mandated by popular elections, the Senate will take over the custodial powers of the Elected Presidency. A Senate veto will return relevant Bills to Parliament for debate, which Parliament can veto with a 75% or three-quarters majority. As part of the legislative arm of the State and not the Executive arm, and mandated to fulfil a limited custodial role, Senators would be under no illusion of having any executive or policymaking powers. It is the WP's belief that such a two-chamber Page: 70 legislative system will minimise gridlock and enhance constructive politics. With the establishment of the Senate, the Presidency shall revert to an office appointed by Parliament with no custodial role to perform. By focusing on unifying Singaporeans and representing Singapore to the world, the dignity of the office will be preserved and protected from the risk of politicisation inherent in electoral competition and in checking Parliament and being checked by an appointed CPA. Parliament shall consider the multiracial character of society and factor in multiracial representation when making the appointment. This way, the symbolic role of representing our coveted multiracialism will also be preserved and protected from politicisation.”
“As the ethnicity of the candidates will be pushed into the glare of competitive elections in the case of reserved elections, this will inadvertently lead to the politicisation of multiracialism and may even introduce communal interests into the contest. Thirdly, the WP proposes to revert to the ceremonial Presidency and to establish an Elected Senate to fulfil the custodial role as the solution. We studied and deliberated the Constitutional Commission's report and agreed that the most elegant solution to the problem is the Commission's alternative proposal to revert to an appointed ceremonial Presidency and to set up a group of experts to exercise the Elected President's custodial role. However, as the body performing a check on Parliament should have a popular mandate, we believe this group of experts ought to be popularly elected. With your permission, Mdm Speaker, I would like to distribute a two-page handout which presents two flowcharts. The first is titled Checks and Balances under Option A, which fleshes out the key details of how the Elected Presidency system with a strengthened CPA, as conceived by the Government ,would operate. The second, titled Checks and Balances under Option B, presents a streamlined system of checks and balances with an elected Senate, as put forth by the WP.”
“Again, in order to further moderate the risk of the Elected Presidency having too much power to clip the Government's wings, the Government is turning to the unelected CPA. By expanding the CPA from six to eight members and obliging the President to consult the Council on all monetary matters related to the reserves and all key Public Service appointments, the Government is not Page: 69 merely strengthening the CPA's advisory capacity, but is changing the very nature of the CPA beyond its advisory function. In attempting to create another check, namely, the strengthened CPA on the original check, namely, the Elected Presidency, the Government's approach will, in effect, create a third key for safeguarding the Reserves. When the President disagrees with the Government, the strengthened CPA will be empowered to settle the decision on the side of either party. This makes the CPA another alternative centre of power. This approach risks politicising the office of the Presidency further, by placing the Elected President in a situation where he will be caught in a three-way face-off in making crucial custodial decisions. This approach also risks producing complicated three-way situations that could end in gridlock and the erosion of the legitimacy of the elected Government. An unelected CPA should not have the power to create such outcomes. The Government's proposal to reserve an election for an ethnic community, if the past five Elected Presidents did not come from that ethnic community, does not solve the problem. Over a long period, our Presidents should come from the main ethnic communities to symbolise and express the multiracial fabric of our nation. However, to tie this important symbolic role with the electoral process risks politicisation of the role.”
“To this end, we disagree with the Government that the solution to the current problem is to tighten the qualifying criteria of the Elected Presidency and to strengthen the CPA). In tightening the qualifying criteria for the Elected Presidency, the Government seeks to lessen the potential for the Elected President to become an alternative centre of power by severely reducing the number of qualifying candidates and restricting the pool to a super elite group of executives in the private and public sectors. This is based on the mistaken premise that a candidate from such a pool is immune to politicisation and will not become an activist President. The Government has refused to recognise that the problem is inherent to the Elected Presidency by virtue of a popular mandate. Unlike the typical MP, the Elected President is elected by the whole nation to represent the country without political affiliation. The competitive election process between individuals against one another compels candidates to offer platforms to attract votes. The outcome of such a popular election tempts candidates to use the percentage of votes garnered as an indication of popular endorsement and the elected candidate to claim a mandate beyond his or her constitutional powers. The Government had recognised that, even with existing discretionary powers, we run the risk in the Elected Presidency of placing too much power in one person to properly check a popularly elected Parliament. The CPA was set up to moderate this risk by endowing the Elected President with a team of advisors so that his or her decisions would always have the benefit of a group of experts and/or experienced persons.”
“Page: 68 In January this year, when the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Constitutional Commission to study changes to the Elected Presidency, Prime Minister Lee said that the President cannot be an alternative centre of power. In September, when the Law Minister rebutted the Constitutional Commission's alternative proposal to replace the Elected Presidency with an appointed Council of Experts, he said that the President himself must be elected to have the popular mandate to veto an elected Government. The WP agrees with the Government on these two fundamental principles. First, the President should not become an alternative centre of power with the potential to undermine the sovereign authority of Parliament. Second, our national Reserves need to be safeguarded and the bodies safeguarding the Reserves would need to be elected to say "no" to the government of the day and to force a debate in Parliament. This has been the WP position when the Elected Presidency was first introduced in 1991. We believe that an Elected President should not fetter the supreme power of Parliament as the people's representatives. The Presidency should be a dignified ceremonial office and a President from any race should focus on performing his or her role in fostering national unity and representing Singapore to the world. We also believe that the past Reserves should be safeguarded. But this custodial function should lie with the elected representatives of the legislature. Secondly, the WP believes that reviewing the Elected Presidency by strengthening the CPA to check the Elected President complicates the Elected Presidency further.”
“Mdm Speaker, the changes proposed by the Government to the provisions that deal with the Elected Presidency in the Constitution by way of this Bill are uniquely significant. A key significance lies in the fact that a Constitutional Commission was formed to review the Elected Presidency, only the second time such a Constitutional Commission was formed in the history of post-independent Singapore. However, the deepest significance of the Commission's findings, I would argue, Mdm Speaker, lies in chapter 7 of their report which rests firmly outside the Commission's terms of reference, something that the Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission also did earlier to include points outside their terms of reference. After reading 107 written submissions and receiving oral representations from selected contributors, the Menon Constitutional Commission was compelled to ask a critical question, which, in the opinion of the WP, all Singaporeans ought to ponder over seriously, and that is, should the Presidency remain an elected office? Having had many months to immerse itself in the genesis of the Presidency, its historical role and the function and operation of the Elected Presidency, the Commission found it a critical enough responsibility and duty to pen its thoughts about the Singapore without an Elected President and for the Government to consider undertaking a more fundamental change to the office. With this background to the Commission's work in mind, my speech will cover four main points. Firstly, as guiding principles, the WP agrees that the President should not become an alternative centre of power, of political power and an elected entity should safeguard the nation's Reserves.”
“The best safeguard is to lessen the avenues for Singaporeans to get introduced to gambling. Legalising online gambling is a step in the wrong direction. To conclude, Mdm Speaker, there has been a glaring lack of clarity as to how the Government is making preparations to address the scourge of online gambling downstream, midstream and upstream in a directed and committed way. This is in spite of the Government's open admission that online gambling is, I quote, a "difficult challenge". It would logically follow that the issue would demand significant attention from the authorities. However, one cannot help but get the feeling that it is business as usual, and that online gambling is just another game to gamble on, or just another sport for the public to take a bet on. I am concerned that it is much more ominous than that.”
“Unlike other vices like alcoholism and drug abuse, the costs associated with problem gambling are borne almost entirely by family members, who often end up paying off the debts of the gambler. The embarrassment associated with problem gambling means that the gamblers and their families rarely talk about their problems in public. Because of this, there is a tendency for policymakers to overlook the real social impact of problem gambling. As part of its ongoing review of the exemptions, the Government should look into implementing more stringent "circuit breakers", for example, tying expenditure and daily funding limits on online gambling to an individual's salary or a scale of that salary, and to deliberately set as a low percentage of one's salary or removing the user-defined funding and expenditure limits. Separately, Singapore Pools and the Turf Club should be required to collect detailed statistics so that the Government and the public can better study the trends of online gambling. Anecdotally, many cases of loan sparking "runners" are linked to problem gambling. There should be better statistics gathered on such tragedies to better establish the extent of their links to problem gambling. This will enable a proper assessment of the impact of the exemptions on the rates of gambling and problem gambling. We need to look further downstream to prevent gambling habits from taking root. Particular focus should be on young people. It would appear that many young men are introduced to the habit during their National Service days through army mates, or at their workplaces. More targeted public education is needed, especially among young people, if we are to prevent the scourge of gambling, especially online gambling, from spreading in our society.”
“While feedback through the Government channels, any Government channel, should not be discouraged and, in fact, encouraged, we should remember that they are not subject to the same degree of Parliamentary scrutiny in terms of the range of opinions consulted and the extent of public scrutiny. On Bills that provoke as much controversy as this one, should we not take the extra step to establish relevant Select Committees to go over the implementation and provisions with a fine-tooth comb? In exchange for a bit more time, we gain the opportunity to deepen public engagement and generate greater support for our laws. The Government says that there are safeguards in place to prevent gambling addicts from harming themselves and their families. These include self-exclusion and third party exclusion. However, self-exclusion is only practical for those who recognise that they have a problem. As for third party exclusion, a family member has to cross several difficult hurdles to get his or her loved one placed on the exclusion list. This includes being interviewed by a panel and having to show proof of the family member's gambling addiction. The surreptitious nature of online gambling addiction means that such proof will be hard to obtain. International studies have found that each problem gambler negatively impacts an average eight to 10 family members, colleagues and friends. Also, most problem gamblers do not seek help until they hit rock bottom, for example, if they have wiped out all their family savings. These suggest that the numbers affected by problem gambling are much higher than official statistics may show.”
“25 October 2016: Singapore Pools launched new online betting website, although this was not widely reported in the mainstream media. Ten million dollars is no small sum. It would be a huge gamble to sink $10 million into a contract without knowing whether it would pay off. Yet, more than one year before the exemptions were granted, Singapore Pools appeared to have done exactly that. In the eyes of the public, it would seem that the year-long evaluation of the applications was conducted with one outcome in mind – to find a way for Singapore Pools and the Turf Club to carry out online gambling operations. Was the process meant to determine whether or not the applications should be approved, or to determine how they could be approved? To this end, will the Minister inform this House under what circumstances the Government will review the exemptions granted currently to Singapore Pools and the Turf Club and how it plans to review them in an ongoing manner? During the 2014 debate, I asked the Minister to put the Bill before a Select Committee so as to scrutinise the exemption clauses. This request was turned down as the House was told that the Government had already engaged in consultations. However, in its recent meeting with NCCS, the Government cited its consultations with social service leaders and religious representatives as justification for the exemptions. Was NCCS part of the "religious representatives" consulted in drafting the Bill? Did they agree to the exemptions? If so, why have they changed their position and, if not, why were they not consulted before?”
“The assumption behind this argument is that gamblers who were gambling on illegal overseas gambling websites will switch over to the exempt operators' websites or apps. Has the Government found any studies to show that people will actually switch over to exempt operators? More likely, local gambling apps that have a stamp of approval by the Government will attract people who have previously never gambled online. It may include many young people who may not relish queuing up at Toto outlets or going to the races at the Turf Club but may experiment with gambling for the first time from the privacy of their phones. The legalisation of online gambling will thus expand the gambling market, rather than provide a safe outlet for existing gamblers. Once started, online gambling, like soft drugs, could be a gateway to more serious gambling addictions. In its meeting with NCCS, it was reported that the Government told NCCS that it was not sending conflicting signals with the partial lifting of the ban on online gambling because the exemptions had already been written into the Bill in 2014. It would appear these exemptions were written specifically with Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club in mind. A quick review of the timeline of events is as follows: October 2014: Remote Gambling Bill passed. July 2015: Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club (STC) applied for exemptions. July 2015: Straits Times reported that Singapore Pools had hired OpenBet to replace its website with one that can offer sports betting, and the contract is estimated to be worth $10 million. 15 September 2016: Singapore Pools and STC were reported to be running final tests on their new online betting websites. 29 September 2016: The Government granted exemptions to Singapore Pools and STC.”
“This is a morally questionable argument that is akin to saying that it is okay to harm some people in order to help others. Since problem gambling disproportionately affects the poor, collecting revenues from online gambling is, in effect, a regressive tax on the most vulnerable in our society. The Minister said that the Government looked at similar exempt operator regimes in Hong Kong and Norway and found that the problem gambling situation did not worsen. I am not sure what these studies or what the exact findings were. I hope the Minister will be able to share the details of these studies for Singaporeans to examine. Did these studies prove that having an exempt operator regime reduces gambling harm more than a complete prohibition of online gambling? If not, was the Government too eager to rush to exempt operators before more conclusive results are found? Mdm Speaker, we should not be gambling with the lives of Singaporean families. In the aftermath of the National Council of Churches of Singapore's (NCCS's) dialogue with the Government, it was reported the carve-out created for exempt operators to legally provide online gambling facilities was based on studies relating to the social impact of gambling that the Government had documented, and its assessment of possible scenarios with and without the "valve" of controlled exempt operator. NCCS noted that the research on this area is still new. To this extent at the very least, the Government should publish its research in this area, especially since the Government will reportedly be meeting up with NCCS leaders in three to six months' time. The Minister has argued that exempt operators provide an "outlet" for gamblers and allow the Government to manage crime associated with gambling.”
“An important part of addiction treatment is for the problem gambler to avoid putting himself in situations which could tempt him to lapse back to his bad habit, for example, by avoiding casinos, jackpot rooms or other physical locations where gambling is available. However, it would be impractical to expect a problem gambler to refrain from using his mobile phone or computer as these are needed for modern day work and personal communication. A longitudinal study of gambling and problem gambling in the US between 1999 and 2013 found that problem gambling affects the poor more than the rich. The prevalence of frequent gambling is highest in the poorest one-third of respondents and those in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and it declines dramatically as socio-economic status increases. This could be because some in the lower-income group are motivated to gamble so as to improve their financial situation and status. The most common reaction I have heard from Singaporeans to the news of the issuing of exempt operator licences is that the Government just wants to "make more money". While I am sure the Minister will refute this accusation vigorously, the fact remains that a large part of legalised gambling revenue goes into the state's coffers. Is providing for exempt operators a way to redirect gambling spending away from illegal overseas operators to local operators, which are owned by the Tote Board? If so, this only fuels public speculation that the Government simply wants a piece of the huge global Internet gambling pie and that this is a revenue-raising exercise done at the expense of Singaporeans and their welfare. Some have argued that the Tote Board gives money to many charities which help the vulnerable in our society.”
“One would have thought that it ought to have been imperative for the Government to go public with these new initiatives well before granting exemptions to Singapore Pools and the Turf Club to offer online gambling services starting from October 2016. Mdm Speaker, the choice of the usage of the word "scourge" in my speech fulfils a specific purpose. Why do I call online gambling a scourge? The American Psychiatric Association places pathological gambling in the same category as drug dependency and alcoholism in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). It says that gambling "activate(s) the brain reward system with effects similar to those of drugs of abuse" and that "gambling disorder symptoms resemble substance use disorders to a certain extent." Numerous academic studies have found that online gambling is more addictive than other types of gambling and that online gamblers have higher rates of gambling addiction than traditional gamblers. The Internet has greatly increased the accessibility of gambling. A 2015 study in Spain found a significant increase in pathological gamblers two years after the legalisation of online gambling in that country. The problem was found to be especially serious among young people – online gambling has become the main form of pathological gambling among people below 26 years old in Spain. These results are unsurprising, since Millennials are more comfortable using Internet technologies than their older counterparts. Online gambling has another dark side. Problem and pathological gamblers can place bets using their smart phones without their friends and family members even noticing, unlike when they visit the casinos or go to the Turf Club. This removes a very important informal safeguard against problem gambling.”
“Mdm Speaker, I am speaking on this Adjournment Motion as a result of the debate that took place during the Second Reading of the Remote Gambling Bill in 2014. I noted in my speech then that terrestrial and online gambling are two very different realms that would require different approaches to address the problems associated with gambling in general. To this end, I would like to refer to a section of the speech made by the then Minister for Social and Family Development, Mr Chan Chun Sing, on online gambling, and I quote: "This is an evolving challenge. It is a difficult challenge. We need to stay vigilant to stay ahead of the threat and the challenges. We need to stay ahead and be prepared to strengthen our safeguards as necessary proactively and creatively. And we need concerted efforts by all – individuals, family and society – to keep our eyes on this issue. And we need to make sure that our measures are multi-pronged – upstream, midstream and downstream." During the last session of Parliament, I directed some supplementary questions at the current Minister for Social and Family Development about these multi-pronged measures that the Government had sought to introduce to check online gambling. The answers did not suggest any specific initiatives introduced by the Government since the debate on the Remote Gambling Bill in 2014 to tackle the online gambling realm any differently from terrestrial gambling, even though the Government has acknowledged that its methods of outreach between terrestrial and online gambling have to be different. So, I would like to ask the Minister again, what new upstream, midstream and downstream measures has the Government instituted to prevent the scourge of online gambling since the passage of this Bill in 2014.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his replies to earlier questions. The Minister referred to older blocks. Can the Minister clarify what is the cut-off age before a block is defined as an "older block"? The second question is: with regard to the 50-50 cost sharing scheme with regard to facade repair, in view of the fact that there will be some Town Councils which host a larger number of older blocks, as a result of which the prospect of facade repair may be more frequent than blocks that are not as old, would MND consider increasing the quantum of its contribution to the cost-sharing scheme with regard to facade repair?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have a few supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, during the Second Reading of the Remote Gambling Bill, the then Minister for Social and Family Development said that, minimally, exempt operators would be expected to include measures for self-exclusion, employee training, patron education, amongst others. In view of the differences between online and terrestrial gambling, what are the new measures – and I emphasise, new measures – that have been undertaken by the Ministry beyond the baseline measures to address the negative effect of online gambling at all levels – upstream, midstream and downstream? The second question: at the Second Reading of the Bill, the then Minister for Social and Family Development also spoke of the prospect of online counselling. Can the Minister please brief this House as to whether such measures, specific to online gambling, are going to be introduced? And in this vein, as the Minister just mentioned, what are the expenditure and funding limits for online gambling on a daily basis, in specific numbers? Thirdly, beyond the requirements that are outlined in the Act, has the Government imposed any additional or specific directions on the Turf Club or Singapore Pools, in relation to the conduct, supervision and control of remote gambling in Singapore? Finally, how long are the exemptions for the Turf Club and Singapore Pools valid for, and on what basis does the Ministry assess these exemptions in an on-going way?”
“A final question, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for the reply. The issue now appears to be focused on hire-purchase agreements which are found in the market. And what has happened is that while, indeed, they are set up ostensibly for a business or commercial purpose, there is also the prospect of not running it for that purpose at all, as in, for example, you register a company or a private hire under the Uber or Grab framework but in actual fact what you are doing is you are owning a vehicle but not exactly using it for the purpose for which it is registered. That, in a way, is a loophole or a workaround the existing MAS curbs. Does MAS have any plans to address this matter?”
“Two follow-up questions, Mdm Speaker. From 26 May this year, MAS stated that the revised loan-to-value ratio and loan tenures will be extended to motor vehicle financing on a hire-purchase basis. Prior to the latest set of regulations, it was widely reported that MAS' curbs of 2013 were being breached quite blatantly in the motor industry by way of overtrade, disguised leases and various other inflationary strategies and creative measures. Can the Acting Minister clarify if companies that advertise "private-hire purchase" schemes, the hyphenation being between "private" and "hire", or with loans which are sold as "own a car with 10% downpayment", are in breach of MAS' latest guidelines? These are available today on the market. The second question is, has MAS considered reviewing the inclusion of motor loans in the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework, in view of the loopholes that seem to govern MAS' rules on motor vehicle financing?”
“As the stadium gasped, President Nathan, with the critical eye of a coach, pointed out to me the Lions XII player who lost concentration and was dispossessed of the ball close to the middle of the pitch. It was an eyebrow raising observation because 10 or 15 passes had elapsed between the player he was referring to losing possession and the chance that was created by the Johor team. In a very different context and in a rather unanticipated way, I bore witness to his eye for detail and his ability to focus on the issues that mattered, traits for which he was widely known for in the Public Service. The most unforgettable incident of the night came shortly before the game ended when President Nathan's words were marked by a palpable seriousness. He said, "You must always look after the interests of Singaporeans and Singapore." At no point did he raise any doubts or concerns about serving Singapore in a different colour, cause or capacity. It was clear what motivated him all his life. President Nathan's simple words and the lyrics of his favourite Tamil song, "Taking Sand from Tanjore", which was played at his State Funeral, remind us that regardless of our differences, we are one people and must remain so.”
“Mdm Speaker, like many younger Singaporeans, I am of a generation that grew up with President Nathan when he became President and took on a significantly more public persona. His passing, however, was also an opportunity to remember his immense courage in service of Singapore. Specifically, his role and that of his compatriots in the Laju incident bears witness to traits any young Singaporean would look up to proudly. I only ever met the President twice: the first during the Cabinet Swearing-in Ceremony in 2011, and once more, two years later, at a Lions XII football game at the Jalan Besar Stadium, just a few games short of the team's crowning as Malaysia Super League Champions. I went to the stadium with my wife and as we walked along the grandstand section, I heard some voices calling out. It took a while to confirm where they were coming from. I was surprised to see President Nathan, who was chatting with the then Minister-in-charge of Sports, Mr Lawrence Wong. As I made my way to where President Nathan was seated, the President joked that, having recently gotten married, I appeared to be more interested to sit alone with my wife and had, therefore, chosen to ignore him when he was calling out to me! I protested, of course. President Nathan smiled, took my hand and invited my wife and I to sit next to him. Throughout the match, President Nathan did not make things intimidating or uncomfortable. He would occasionally lean over to query why the referee had made a certain decision or why play was being stopped when a tackle or infringement seemed innocuous. A telling moment, however, came when Johor, who were already leading from an early goal, nearly extended their lead as the Lions pressed for an equaliser.”
“Madam, just following up on part (c) of my question and I am really referring to the future batches of trains ordered from CSR Sifang and Kawasaki. What pre-emptive action, if any, is the Ministry taking to ensure that the C151C batch of trains and CT251 batches of trains that were ordered, even as the manufacturing defects were discovered which affected the C151A batch, what is the Ministry doing to ensure that this would not be repeated in future?”
“Mdm Speaker, just two follow-up questions for the Minister. Firstly, were there any other inherent manufacturing defects that have to be looked into, either in Singapore or China, and, in this case, in China, where the train carriages are to be repaired and re-assembled there? I ask this because there was one reported case, I believe, of the explosion of a battery, affecting this batch, the C151A batch. And then there were also a number of cases which affected, I think, five trains of shattering glass screens. Have there been any other inherent manufacturing defects that have been discovered? Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether there will be more regular safety inspections for this batch of trains even when they come back? And what is the role of Kawasaki Heavy Industries in this? Lastly, when the trains return, will there be a warranty period for them?”
“Can the Senior Minister of State confirm which individual made that statement?”
“Mdm Speaker, I will deal with the point about the Lianhe Wanbao interview. The word I used was not "unlawful", but "improper", and that word really follows in concert with the Court of Appeal's judgment which was to look at improper past payments, so it will be how KPMG puts it out in its past payment review report. Indeed, if they find that there are payments which ought to be recovered and there were lost monies, then it is our duty to go and recover them. I make no bones about this. The second issue I would like to raise is the point that the Senior Minister of State brought up about the joint appointment of accountants which HDB, if I heard him correctly, agreed with PRPTC on 3 March. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State when was this information that HDB had agreed with PRPTC to appoint accountants made known to AHTC? And if the joint appointment of accountants was indeed so important to HDB, the Court of Appeal's judgment of 27 November 2015 allows HDB, MND and AHTC liberty to apply to the Court. I am a bit surprised that the joint appointment of accountants is so important now because HDB did not raise it to the Court of Appeal.”