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 36 of 36.
“This was reflective of the public interest in the issue, given that a central pillar of Singapore's foreign policy operates within a Southeast Asian situation, which hosts a large Muslim population. Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the resolution, it is encouraging to note that the Government made it a point to state that Singapore has voted in favour of 18 out of 19 resolutions tabled at the United Nations General Assembly on Palestinian issues since 2008. However, each resolution carries with it a unique foreign policy signature. The resolution on Palestine's elevation is a case in point. Even though Singapore had voted for resolutions in Palestine's favour previously, our decision to abstain is more likely to be remembered than our previous voting patterns because of the weight and international profile of the resolution to elevate Palestine's international status. In fact, Singapore's even-handed position, "sharing the desires of the Palestinians for an independent state, and that of Israel for its security", may have been misunderstood by some Singaporeans in favour of the latter, because of our abstention. To that end, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' parliamentary answer to my question stating that Singapore does not support Israel's activities that contravene international law, including its settlement activities in the Occupied Territories is welcomed, as is its communication of this position to Israeli representatives in bilateral meetings. It is equally noteworthy that Singapore sees both sides as having legitimate rights and shared responsibilities. The weight of this statement is significant because it counters a perception that Singapore is pro-Israel, but rather, pro-peace.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I refer to the Foreign Minister's reply to my Parliamentary Question on 14 January 2013 pertaining to Singapore's decision to abstain from the successfully passed UN resolution to elevate Palestine's status at the United Nations to a non-member observer state. This oral question was not answered by question-and-answer time during the last sitting, and was responded to in written form in accordance with parliamentary procedure. I have, therefore, sought the leave of Speaker to respond to the Foreign Minister's reply in which the Minister requests for some clarifications, in accordance with parliamentary Standing Order 25. While it would be debatable whether a change in Singapore's voting position would make us more secure, my initial concern when news of Singapore's abstention came through was our decision would indeed have made us more insecure and vulnerable to terrorist threats. Singapore's decision to abstain was in marked contrast to all other ASEAN member states, and an overwhelming number of UN member states, which voted in favour of the resolution. It is noteworthy that many of these countries, like Singapore, have also established UNSC Resolution 242 to be the basis of a viable and long-term Page: 43 solution to the Israel-Palestine issue, and yet, without contradiction, voted in favour to elevate Palestine's status at the UN to that of a non-member observer. I recall in early December 2012, first Senior Minister of State Masagos Zulkifli bin Masagos Mohamad and then Prime Minister Lee sought to explain Singapore's decision to abstain via Facebook after the event, because of queries on the matter.”
“Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. The upcoming White Paper notwithstanding, can I enquire if any studies have been done by the National Population and Talent Division on an increase in the population size for Singapore, going forward? Has such a study been conducted and, if so, can this study be released for public information as well?”
“Sir, just to follow up on this issue. There was a report in the papers which stated that at some parts of the tunnel, there was flooding up to a metre which also contributed to this problem. Can I just confirm with the Ministry whether there is any plan also to conduct a thorough check of these tunnels to ensure that this flooding does not become a larger safety concern beyond the issue of cable and cable damage?”
“Let us leave the task of passing judgment to our judges. Mr Speaker, my opposition to the mandatory death penalty notwithstanding, I support this Bill. 5.12 pm”
“I note other amendments to the Act which include strengthening the punishment framework for repeat drug offenders and those who traffic drugs to the young and vulnerable, as made out in section 12A and separately the provision of a Community Rehabilitation Centre which gives the Director of the CNB the option of allowing young abusers the option of continuing with their education or employment. The introduction of section 31A, covering the inclusion of hair tests to determine if an offender should be placed under supervision, is also a step in the right direction, as is the decision to target drug parties and the temporary listing of psychoactive substances. All said, the creation of greater options to deal with drug offenders and the drug menace in a more nuanced and targeted fashion is welcomed and is likely to represent another arrow in the quiver for our enforcement officers. In conclusion, this Bill leaves me to say a word about the special men and women who work in service of a drug-free Singapore through the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). In fact, I do believe that it is of vital importance that Singaporeans support and recognise their unique and challenging work so as to engender a healthy trust between citizens and the executive arms of Government, which include the CNB and the Attorney-General's Chambers. To that end, a criminal justice system that operates to give the judicial arm of Government the discretion to pass judgment on persons charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act would be the preferred way forward. Our prosecutorial and evidence collecting agencies should be left to focus on their important work rather than spending time worrying about legal contortions, and trying to manoeuvre around offences that carry the mandatory death penalty.”
“This ought to be considered for the following reason: while the Government's move to rationalise the application of the mandatory death penalty is noteworthy, I do not expect the high priests of organised crime to sit idly by and they may well further tighten the compartmentalisation of their operations to ensure that drug couriers only have enough information to incriminate themselves or a small cell group of anonymous drug-pushers, not the controllers and masterminds which the amended Act seeks to target as well. Allowing a trial judge to determine the extent and scope of an accused's cooperation with enforcement agencies if no certificate of cooperation is issued, would also be in line with the Government's stated position of giving more discretion to judges. Like many Singaporeans and the Government, I am mindful of the impact of drugs on our people and society. I acknowledge the concerns many have over the slippery slope argument – that any perception of an easing of our drug laws may open the floodgates to negative consequences. But in the same vein, I am also quietly confident that our judges are equally, if not more sensitive and exposed to the wider societal impact of drug abuse, and the range of sentences they are able mete out to combat it. Page: 1097 This is especially relevant, as any move away from the mandatory death penalty does not preclude our judges from sentencing an accused to death, in the appropriate case.”
“Page: 1096 In fact, with regard to section 33B of the amendment, the two specific conditions under which the death penalty will no longer be mandatory may well put unwelcome pressure on the Public Prosecutor from members of the public to reveal the circumstances and reasons what specific information was revealed by an accused in the name of "substantive cooperation". This pressure on the Public Prosecutor is not likely to abate, but more likely brought into distinct relief by the presence of section 33B(4) which makes it clear that no action or proceeding shall lie against the Public Prosecutor on the determination of substantive assistance, unless it can be proved that the determination was done in bad faith or with malice. In tandem, the circumstances that lead to the issuance of a certificate of cooperation may not be too controversial. But I am concerned that an accused who is unable to provide actionable information or the potentially subjective "substantive cooperation", stands to be at the mercy of the Public Prosecutor's judgment – a state of affairs that is not transparent, and not open to public scrutiny, unlike the situation of a trial judge in open court. Here, it would have been opportune for the Bill to allow an accused's counsel to make representations when the Public Prosecutor does not issue a certificate of cooperation, and for the trial judge to determine in his/her discretion, the extent and scope of the accused's cooperation with enforcement agencies, including the reasons for the absence of a certificate of cooperation.”
“This is even if there is evidence that can be brought to bear to suggest that an accused's circumstances warrant a closer look to consider the imposition of a sentence other than the mandatory death penalty. To this end, I welcome the loosening of the mandatory death penalty for couriers as it returns some judicial discretion in qualified cases, limited though they may be, to our judges. After investing millions of dollars on the development of a world-class judiciary comprising the brightest legal minds, there ought to be no place for mandatory sentences which effectively make the role of the Judiciary administrative, in favour of the Executive arm of the state in the shape of the Public Prosecutor. This is a systemic anomaly which this Bill ought to have corrected once and for all. As iterated by the former Attorney-General Walter Woon when it comes to the mandatory death penalty, the Prosecutor, an agent of the Executive, takes the hard decisions. What this Bill could have done was to ensure that the Judiciary takes these hard decisions instead. This would have served the interests of accountability and would not only have strengthened the integrity of our criminal justice system, but increased public trust in it as well. Broadly, while I welcome any move away from mandatory sentences as section 33B of this Bill proposes, I am concerned that with the narrow and selective loosening of the mandatory death penalty regime, focus on the exercise of the Public Prosecutor's discretion will become even more acute going forward.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The amendments proposed by the Government are a step in the right direction insofar as it loosens the application of the mandatory death penalty under two specific conditions. However, this move also represents a missed opportunity to remove the mandatory death penalty from our statute books completely. While there is significant debate in some quarters about the role and significance of the death penalty in our criminal justice system, it is viscerally apparent that many Singaporeans feel a sense of security with its continued existence in the statute books, even as others question the utility of the death penalty as deterrence. Page: 1095 While the death penalty per se is not of direct relevance to this Bill, it is noteworthy that a video poll conducted by The Online Citizen sometime in 2011, observed that many Singaporeans did not know the difference between the application of the death penalty and the mandatory death penalty. The distinction is structurally important, especially when understood within the Diceyan separation of powers schema between the executive and judicial arms of Government. In mandatory death sentence cases, mitigation is irrelevant as are the unique factual circumstances of an accused. The judicial process concludes upon a finding of guilt. Under an offence that carries the mandatory death penalty, our judges are strait-jacketed from exercising the powers they have been vested – to be impartial decision makers in the pursuit of justice, with the power to hear all sides of the case. All the prosecution has to do is to prove that the accused is guilty of the charge preferred against him or her, and the hands of a judge are tied.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for the answers. With regard to NUS' statutes which govern how it disciplines individual cases, I think there is some concern why in one particular case the NUS came out with an explanation as to the disciplinary procedure that it had decided to proceed with against a PRC student who made certain disparaging remarks about Singaporeans. But in this case, NUS has decided to not reveal what disciplinary action had been taken against another student. So, would the MOE consider getting some clarity from NUS as to whether there will be any consistency about the interpretation of these statutes?”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. According to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, in his reply to Member of Parliament Cedric Foo in this House last month, Deputy Prime Minister stated that competency in procurement procedures amongst civil servants has been a problem, and that delegation and supervision are also concerns. Can the Minister please elaborate on how the procurement of assets and expendables has been tightened in his Ministry since the Brompton bicycle scandal broke out? What action has the Ministry taken to ensure that a similar incident will not occur in future? I ask this because Deputy Prime Minister Tharman mentioned that "the core of the clean and functioning procurement system lies on the active oversight and supervision within each Ministry and agency". It will be helpful if the Minister could inform the House what changes have been made in the Ministry of National Development.”