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 8 of 36.
“These are the reasons that explain why the WP statement calls for an immediate ceasefire, a return of hostages and the conveyance of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, to be followed by serious negotiations towards a two-state solution. A second important aspect of the WP statement was to identify the threat of the latest edition of the Israel-Hamas conflict to multiracial and multicultural societies and communities like Singapore. The reality of radicalisation and the prospect of uncalled for and senseless attacks against Jews and Muslims all over the world and a more unsafe world as a result, cannot be understated. Singaporeans should be alive to this and not fall prey to calls, especially online, that target Jews or Muslims. The threat is not imaginary. The long-standing Israel-Palestinian conflict was, according to the Internal Security Department, one of the reasons why a 20-year-old Singaporean was remanded some two years ago, because he planned to attack and murder Jews worshipping at the Maghain Aboth Synagogue, the oldest synagogue in Singapore. While the call for a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict, consistent with UN Resolutions, is a clear way forward, we all know that the reality is more complex and layered, and getting to this outcome will be a struggle. For example, many months ago, the most famous historian of his generation, Yuval Harari, a Jew living in Israel, was quoted as saying on the BBC that "my house is burning". Prior to Hamas' unprovoked attack, an intense political battle had been taking place for Israel's soul. Deep political fissures over a fundamental tenet of democracy, the separation of powers, pitted many elements of Israeli society against the plans of a right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu.”
“Since the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip in 2006, four other major conflicts have broken out between Israel and Hamas. The tragedy that is befalling the people of Gaza today is a continuation of what has happened many times before. In previous bouts of violence between Israel and Hamas, 5,365 Palestinians are reported to have been killed, many of them children, while 308 Israelis are reported to have lost their lives. The same history always repeats itself. In the end, the story on the Palestinian side is always far more gruesome in scale – overwhelming casualties, with a large number of children among the dead. Only the ill-informed could have thought that the latest instalment was going to be any different. If history is a guide, we will soon see the number of dead Palestinians in Gaza cross the 10,000 mark, with many of the dead being women and children. As one senior former Israeli Defence Forces commander told me once, the Israeli way of war in the Gaza Strip is to strike hard so that the Palestinians learn a lesson they never forget. So, they live in fear and, as a result, are deterred from ever attacking Israel again. With such an approach to warfare, one that invokes collective punishment in the name of self-defence, the death of many innocent Palestinians is all but certain. Far from deterring future attacks on the Israeli state, this disproportionate response gives birth to a new generation of Palestinians that seek to avenge their forebears and some of whom see martyrdom as something to aspire to. This sad reality repeats itself ad infinitum, scuttling both the birth of a viable Palestinian state as well as creating conditions in Israel where its borders are secure and its people live in peace with their neighbours.”
“Absent was context – context of Israel's occupation and subjugation of the occupied territories, a matter that has not been resolved for decades, nor was there any reflection on past UN fact-finding missions to Gaza in the aftermath of previous Israel-Hamas conflicts. Nor was there any consideration of the impact of the wanton expansion of settlements in the occupied territories by successive right-wing Israeli governments, which de-legitimised the right of a Palestinian people, making any future peace even harder to reach. Ultimately, these omissions, amongst others, operated to decontextualise the tragedy that befell Israel and their people on 7 October 2023. Mr Speaker, the Motion as worded by the three Members and the amended Motion as proposed by the Member, Mr Yam, is not objectionable and will be supported by the WP. I assume Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Zhulkarnain will agree with me that the Israel-Hamas conflict is a subset of a larger struggle that arises out of the absence of a political resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I invite all three Members to disagree with me now and for the record, if they do not agree with this statement. I am prepared to give way. I will continue, Mr Speaker. The first objective of the WP's statement of 18 October was to put out this seemingly obvious fact – that the latest eruption in hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians should not be seen in isolation even as we condemn the killing of civilians by any country or organisation, including Hamas. Having done so, it was important to state that this latest outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Hamas was not new.”
“All Singaporeans should be aware and mindful of this possibility and play an active part to prevent it from happening on our shores." "We call on Israel to reject the collective punishment of innocent civilians, cease all military operations in the Gaza Strip and to allow for the transit of humanitarian aid into Gaza forthwith. At the same time, we call for the immediate return of all Israeli hostages captured in Hamas' military operation in Southern Israel on 7 October 2023. De-escalation by all parties must be followed by a withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, followed by serious negotiations to achieve a lasting peace in the Holy Land – a peace that legitimises the existence of the state of Israel and establishes a viable Palestinian state." By the time the WP released its statement on 18 October, ordinary Singaporeans were troubled and even agitated about the issue. Many wrote to the WP Members of Parliament and continue to do so. In the assessment of the WP, one reason that precipitated this frustration was the perception of a dominant narrative at that point in the West and other advanced economies to focus only on the actions of Hamas. Let me be clear – the atrocities committed against innocent civilians by Hamas militants on 7 October cannot be supported. There can be no reason to target, kill or take civilians hostage. But it is important to point out that the West's one-dimensional narrative was inadequate and incomplete because it suggested that the Israel-Palestine conflict started on 7 October 2023, with the killing of innocent civilians in Israel.”
“I will repeat the statement for the record without reference to the footnotes in the statement. "The Workers' Party Members of Parliament have received many emails and representations from Singaporeans calling for an immediate end to hostilities and the delivery of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip." "Previous military action in the Gaza Strip undertaken by the Israel Defence Forces in response to militant operations including by Hamas have been marked by overwhelming disproportionality. We fear this reality will repeat itself in the coming days, weeks and months." "The flagrant disregard of the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Charter and other international legal instruments; including the occupation of land taken in war by any sovereign nation – is not in Singapore's national interests." "The killing of non-combatants, women and children by any country or organisation, in the name of war, deserves no less than absolute condemnation." "The Workers' Party supports Singapore's long-held position that a two-state solution consistent with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions is the only viable path to a durable, just and comprehensive resolution to the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine." "In particular, UNSC Resolution 242 which is supported by Singapore, calls for the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territories occupied since the 1967 war, in exchange for a lasting peace with its neighbours." "Worryingly, the continuing conflict in Israel and Palestine is likely to increase attacks against Jews and Muslims elsewhere, raising the prospect of radicalisation far beyond the Middle East, making the world more unsafe and dangerous for all countries, particularly where multiracial and multicultural communities live in peace and harmony.”
“The United Nations has declared the Israeli settlements a violation of international law, describing them as a creeping annexation. The Israelis, however, know that such declarations are toothless unless they are endorsed by the Americans." "If, for example, the Americans are willing to cut off financial aid to Israel amounting to $115 billion since 1949 as well as other forms of military and political support until the building of settlements stops, Israel will have no choice but to act. Without the Americans putting pressure on Israel, there is no end in sight for the conflict." Mr Lee also warns, "The conflict also serves as an evergreen cause which Jihadists can exploit as part of their propaganda efforts to attract young recruits. The cause is kept alive across the Middle East as well as in other parts of Asia through television images that play up Palestinian sufferings." Mr Speaker, since 7 October, thousands of innocents have been killed and wounded in Israel and Gaza. Among those are thousands of children, the overwhelming majority of which are Palestinian. The sight of dead children being pulled from the rubble, their parents weeping, is something no sane human being could ever wish for anyone. Why should we in Singapore even be speaking in Parliament about what is happening in Israel and the occupied territories, including Gaza? A conflict more than 8,000 kilometers away has prompted Singaporeans from all communities to speak out and donate money to assist those in Gaza who are in dire circumstances. It is clear that Singaporeans care and are very concerned about what is happening there. I will make three points in my speech, taking reference from the Workers' Party (WP)'s statement on the conflict on 18 October 2023.”
“Mr Speaker, before speaking on the substantive and amended Motions, I would like to recall the perspective of our first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which he shared in 2013, referring to the larger canvas against which the latest hostilities between Israel and Hamas have occurred. I quote, "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the biggest problem plaguing the Middle East. It is a running sore that oozes pus all the time. To end the conflict, there has to be a two-state solution – one for the Israelis and one for the Palestinians. The Palestinian state must also be economically and politically viable. Its people must feel that they have a reasonable chance of making a success out of their country. Only then will they have a vested interest in keeping peace in this troubled region." "Because of the pro-Israel policy the Jewish lobby has succeeded in forging for America, a hardline stance is allowed to prevail in the Israeli leadership. This can have adverse and irreversible effects on the peace process. By building settlements in the occupied territories, for example, Israel is slowly but surely annexing land that would be handed over to the Palestinians in any potential deal between the two sides." "Ultra-conservatives in Israel believe the settlements bring Israel closely to its rightful historical borders as laid out in the Hebrew bible. They believe recovering the land is ordained by God, no less. The settlements represent an unwelcomed revision to an already complicated status quo. They are causing the prospects of any future possible deal to become ever remote." Mr Lee continues, "With every passing day, a permanent solution to the conflict becomes less likely.”
“Just one question for the Acting Minister for Transport. How does the Government, or specifically LTA, determine at any given point what is the appropriate number of motorcycles on the road in view of the incomes of Singaporeans across the board? In the past, we have had situations where motorcycle COEs were transferred to Open category, for example. So, how does the LTA determine and regulate what would be the appropriate level of motorcycle ownership in Singapore?”
“In the main, my supplementary questions were really framed with regard to the clarification that HDB gave to the public via CNA. The Senior Minister of State spoke of what it means by a delay. According to the HDB statement, it said, "It takes up to 21 working days for HFE applications to be processed. So, I think the gist of my supplementary question is: how many applications went beyond those 21 days? That should be a very simple criterion in terms of understanding what problems were faced by HDB because that is what has already occurred. There is another deeper query: in terms of moving forward, are we going to see a repetition of this matter or has the problem been fully resolved, as stated by the HDB's press release? I note the Senior Minister of State's qualification with regard to BTO sales launches and resale exercises. Can I just confirm, in so far as HFE applications for resale flats are concerned, is there actually no problem and there would be no issue in getting the HFE within 21 days of application?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some questions for the Senior Minister of State. One, I do not think the question has been answered vis-a-vis how many applications were affected by the technical issues. I think the Minister of State replied to say there were 50,000 applications, but that does not answer the question. The second supplementary question deals with the response to a press query by CNA on this matter and it was stated that the issue affecting the HFE matter has been resolved. Can I confirm that there would be no issues of that nature for the October exercise? And with regard to those applications arising from the May 2023 exercise, how many people are still awaiting positive response to their HFE application? By "positive response", I mean a response to the HFE application.”
“Just a follow-up to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's replies. I refer to individuals in a family context, for example, full-time caregivers who have to look after family members who cannot work and their ability to go out and work in itself is limited. Does MSF look at assisting these families with a higher short-, medium- or long-term assistance payout?”
“Mr Speaker, just two questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, in 2018, water prices were raised by 30%. The latest announcement by the Government sees them go up by another 18%. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State why such a short interregnum, as compared to the pre-2018 increase, before which prices are going up again for water? Is there any scope, policy space, for the Government to delay this increase with a view towards the profits generated by the authorities vis-a-vis water and the supply of water? My second question is with regard to the household water consumption patterns. I understand they have been on the down over the past few years, although it saw an uptick during the COVID-19 pandemic – and, understandably so, because most people were at home. With this as a backdrop, can I query the relevance of the water conservation tax as opposed to the Government's implementation of more water-efficient features for households, which is a more effective policy tool to encourage lower consumption of water and achieve the outcome that the Ministry is looking at with regard to ensuring that every Singaporean sees the first drop of water as a very scarce resource? So, is there space for the Government to reconsider the utility of its water conservation tax? Is it achieving the policy purpose that is intended? Or are water-efficient features actually a more likely source of realising water savings from household consumers?”
“The other question was access to the Public Service Division’s (PSD) Member of Parliament Appeal System (MPAS). Essentially, just to confirm whether the Minister is still performing his roles and duties on the ground as an MP looking after his constituents. Because I think the key issue here is, if he is effectively suspended as an MP as well?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the Leader on the status of Mr S Iswaran's responsibilities as an MP. I have asked two questions specifically on his access to MPAS, for example, his access to Government buildings, including Parliament. Can the Leader please clarify that situation?”
“" My third question is this: can the Leader clarify whether the word "outcome" in para (c) of the Leader's Motion means that this House will consider this matter once investigations are completed and a decision has been made on whether charges would be preferred against Mr Iswaran or if it means that this House will consider this matter only upon conclusion of the entire criminal justice process, including any possible appeal? The WP's position on the Leader's Motion will turn on the responses to these three specific queries.”
“For the WP to decide on whether to support the Leader's Motion, there are a few questions I would like to ask the Leader in order that this House can understand the full extent of the restrictions on Mr Iswaran as an MP. My first question is: can the Leader confirm whether Mr Iswaran's ban on entering Government buildings extends to Parliament House? Does Mr Iswaran have access to the Public Service Division's MP Appeal System and is he rendering assistance or expected to do so to his residents in his capacity as an MP? My second question addresses the Prime Minister's comment that consequences will follow. It is unclear if those, I quote, "consequences" include a clawback of the MP allowance. I would advance that such a clawback for the period during which he has not performed MP's duties would be a reasonable expectation of the public. So, my second question is this: can the Leader tell us whether a clawback of Mr S Iswaran's MP allowance is within the PAP's contemplation in so far as clause (c) of the Leader's Motion is concerned? For completeness, it is this issue that forms the basis of my Parliamentary Question today and filed on 7 September about the duration Mr Iswaran is expected to be absent from Parliament. My third question concerns para (c) of the Leader's Motion where it says that this House will consider this matter when the outcome of ongoing investigations is known. This contrasts with what the Prime Minister said during the clarifications of the Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on Mr Iswaran last month. The Prime Minister said and, I quote, "If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever.”
“Any of these scenarios could come to pass in Mr Iswaran's case. In the Workers' Party's (WP) view, the wheels of justice must be allowed to fully turn before Parliament decides what to do. The WP cannot agree to the Motion filed by the PSP. It would not just be unfair and premature but, significantly, this House would be seeking to overturn the electoral mandate given to Mr Iswaran by the people through the ballot box by prematurely passing judgement on him. This leads me to the second issue on how to deal with an MP who has been put by his party leader on indeterminate leave of absence from Parliament with full MP's allowance. While it may not be appropriate to suspend Mr Iswaran from Parliament, it may well be appropriate to suspend the payment of his MP allowance. WP MP Mr Dennis Tan raised this matter of Mr Iswaran's MP allowance in Parliament last month. Mr Speaker, there is disquiet among members of the public because he continues to collect his allowance. As far as I know, Mr Iswaran is neither performing duties in his constituency nor in Parliament and his likeness is not found on Town Council or People's Association banners in West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC). The Prime Minister said in this House last month that if Parliament wants to stop an MP's allowance, Parliament has to move to interdict the individual as an MP and Parliament has not done that and, I quote, "What has happened is that the MP has been on a leave of absence and, eventually, when the case is settled in one way or another, then consequences would follow." What needs to be noted, however, is that the Prime Minister's act of interdicting Mr Iswaran as Minister appears to have effectively interdicted him as an MP as well.”
“Mr Speaker, I refer to the Motions filed by the Leader of the House on 14 September, precipitated by the Motion filed by PSP's Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Hazel Poa on 7 September calling for the suspension of Mr S Iswaran. In my view, there are two key issues for Parliament to consider: first, whether it is fair and proper for a duly elected Member of Parliament (MP) to be suspended from responsibilities towards his or her constituents and legislative duties before due process is concluded; second, what Parliament ought to do when an MP has been effectively interdicted from MP duties arising from actions taken by his or her Party leader. First, let me speak on the issue of fairness. The hon Member Ms Hazel Poa's case is that a Member should be suspended from Parliament because he has been arrested and is being investigated for the serious offence of corruption. However, the centrality of the rule of law in Singapore renders the hon Member's suggested course of action premature, a point made all the more stark because we do not even know the details of what Mr S Iswaran is accused of. Parliament should be mindful of the dictum of presumption of innocence. With respect, I would also request PSP colleagues in the House to consider the precedent their Motion would create should a future government decide to fix Opposition MPs by way of politically motivated investigations. Sir, in some cases, those who have been investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been charged. In a few other cases, accused persons who have been brought to trial have been acquitted or the prosecution applies to withdraw the charges. In yet other cases, those convicted at first instance have seen their convictions overturned on appeal.”
“Yes, Minister. Maybe I was not clear about the so-called 80,000. I am not saying that in all the 80,000 cases, there would have been some mistake. I am just saying there could be some individuals who voted in GE2020, but they had not informed ELD yet, that is the group that I am concerned with. Just very quickly and continuing on what the Minister said towards the end about ELD, on the day the press release was sent, I dropped a note to ELD because I had members of the public who wrote to me about this problem – and I would just like to say that ELD replied on the same day and assured me that they were looking into the matter. I think it is important to also assure members of the public that ELD has been quite forthright in its communication with me.”
“Thank you, Speaker. To the Minister, just on my earlier supplementary question, the 200 and later on the number was revised to 1,093, these are individuals who got in touch with ELD to inform ELD that, "I am not on the list although I did vote in 2020". My question is, again, based on your reply, the Minister said, following GE2020, there were 111,000 non-voters. And then, from October 2020 to August 2023, 32,000 individuals applied to restore their names. So, this 32,000 would have to be a part of this 111,000 who were non-voters. My point is there is possibly another 80,000 voters who, as of PE2023, could also be non-voters but who voted in GE2020? I just want to confirm whether ELD is also going to reach out to everyone to ensure that they have not been erroneously struck off the voting list. I hope the Minister got the subject matter of my first supplementary question.”
“Sir, between 11 and 24 August, ELD's press release of 24 August stated that about 200 Singaporeans had informed ELD that their names were not in the Registers of Electors even though they had voted in GE2020. The Minister said in his reply that this number is now 1,093. Based on the Minister's reply, will the ELD be sending letters and notifications to all non-voters in GE2020 who have not applied to put themselves back on the Registers of Electors to ensure that no voter has been struck off, due to the additional steps in the electronic registration system process that was employed in GE2020?”
“A last follow-up. I am not sure whether that was an accurate characterisation by the Senior Minister of State. My understanding was that they followed the Correction Direction, but they only partially followed the Correction Direction. There was a clarification on the article itself as required by the POFMA Office but not on the main website. And I think this is my understanding and the Senior Minister of State can correct me if it is wrong. I just want to confirm that.”
“I think on the first point about whether I agree, I do not agree. I do not agree with that approach. On the analogy, of course, the analogy break downs, like the Senior Minister of State shared, because you do not expect a print publication to publish an apology on its first page. So, that is the nub of the issue here. I can accept actually an argument which goes along the line of repeated egregious conduct. Then, we have to take this approach. I think that is fair. But how many times has Asia Sentinel or any other publication – I do not have a particular interest in Asia Sentinel, it is more the approach of the Government. And that is my concern. So, perhaps, I will look forward to some information from the Senior Minister of State about how many other Correction Notices have included this requirement, not just the article but the main website as well. Then, we can analyse and see what the Government's approach is. But I hope I have clarified every question that the Senior Minister of State asked in his reply to me.”
“Sir, I think the point here is what is the effect of that Correction Direction. I have no objection with the Correction Direction being on the article itself. But when you have it on the main webpage, which does not contain the article, but may contain a link to the article, I would grant the Senior Minister of State that. Has there been a situation where Asia Sentinel in the past did not adhere to Correction Directions which led the Government to turn the screw and say, "Look, I think you are pursuing a certain course of conduct which requires us to do this"? That is why my earlier question was about thresholds. The second question I asked was about the approach of the Government: is this the way it is going to move forward – for Correction Directions for any site, you can expect, not just a Correction Direction on the offending article, but on the main webpage as well?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a follow-up for the Senior Minister of State. Can I confirm whether a Correction Notice had been given to Asia Sentinel for other articles in the past and their conduct had been egregious in that they ignored it and, hence, a more heightened approach was taken with them for the subsequent article which contained false statements of fact? Because I think the question here is the threshold. Does the Government treat each site differently or will it treat each site the same? And in this particular case, I think we need to delve deeper into why that particular Correction Direction required not just the clarification from the POFMA Office to be placed on the article itself, but on the main webpage. Can we expect to see the Government pursuing this approach, given his preamble about how important it is to make sure that lies do not get multiplied much more quickly? Is the Government changing its approach to be stricter vis-à-vis Correction Directions? Because the consequence of that Correction Direction is Singaporeans are denied the opportunity to read other articles on Asia Sentinel which contain no false statements of fact. And I think this is a fine line that the POFMA Office needs to consider because I think you have a case when there are false statements of fact, to put out what ought to be the right facts and expect the site to carry them. But it does sound like overreach when you potentially are almost forcing the site to shut down because you force them to actually put the clarification on the first page, which has nothing to do with the article at hand.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I filed this question because it was a point I raised last month in the course of a speech I made on a Bill and the Minister for Communications and Information invited me to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on it. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, at what point is a threshold crossed by which the Government then decides that the Correction Direction not only must be included at the article where the false statement of fact was transmitted, but also the main webpage? Can there not be a question of overreach when you expect the Correction Direction to be on the main webpage as well? Having it on the article itself would be sufficient because then the reader would know that this particular article is the one that has been flagged out, not every article on the Asia Sentinel website. The second question I have is how many Correction Directions have been issued to online sites, which include this particular rendition of the Correction Direction – not just for the article, but for the entire website as well?”
“Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the driver had been circulating this message in his name to multiple members of the WP. I do not think he was interested in protecting his identity. But insofar as the question directed to me, like I said, the conversation with Mr Perera, Mr Perera would have known who that individual was when I asked him. But I did not actively go and seek to do something nefarious.”
“As I mentioned in my first reply, we had to deal with the information that was shared by the driver, we made an assessment of the total circumstances with which the information was provided to us. And as we found out – after the fact of course – this person was a former police officer with more than I think 10 years' experience, I think this was in the papers. I would have expected somebody close to Mr Perera, very close to Mr Perera to have corroboratory evidence at hand. I would have expected that, especially being a driver.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not recall exactly the whole circumstances of my conversations with Mr Perera, which happened some time ago now. But on the first point – can you just repeat the first point, the first question?”
“In terms of protecting the identity of the source, I did not reveal the identity of the source, but I had to check with Mr Perera, "This is the information I received. Can you confirm?"”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the invitation to ask the question about any matter involving what had happened in the WP between Mr Perera and Ms Nicole Seah was put to the Prime Minister, but I will answer the question that the Member has put forward. We made an assessment of the circumstances in which the driver came forward with the information. There was certain information that I had received after the fact that he had secured the phone numbers of many WP members and circulated this allegation to many members, significant number of members across the board. We approached Mr Perera; I approached Mr Perera with the information that was given to me by the driver. I had explained in my press conference what was said by Mr Perera to me and our assessment at the time was, this was what had transpired. But if the Member had listened to the press conference carefully, and I do not think he did, other facts came to bear, such as corroboratory evidence. I think a Stomp article suggested that this video was the video that came out on the same day that the Prime Minister was announcing the resignation of the Speaker and Cheng Li Hui. Stomp reported that the video had been going around since 2021. I can confirm because I asked the Central Executive Committee (CEC) the question, my CEC, had anybody seen the video. Nobody had seen the video. Maybe the Member had seen the video. Perhaps, he can tell me if he had. What had transpired in terms of what was shared – there was no corroboratory information for us to work with and there was no other source. If either of these two criteria came into play, then I think something different would have happened. We would have to look into the matter more carefully, beyond what Mr Perera had shared with us.”
“The first one, can I ask the Member in return, has he perused the entire press conference that was given by the WP on this matter, where the question was answered?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, on the point that Minister Shanmugam raised on item 7294, that is my direct testimony and it does not contradict anything that I have said here today or make the point that the Minister is trying to suggest. That is the first issue. Second issue, on the mental health point. He is referring not to my words or my testimony in the Committee, but how the COP characterised in its report, its interpretation of what had happened vis-à-vis what Ms Khan had said. But would the COP not want to know all the facts of the matter? In fact, in the documents that I submitted to the COP, it was clearly stated in my notes that this is what Raeesah Khan told us. And so, I was merely relaying that to the Committee. To then – as he is doing now – make an inductive leap and characterise that this is now an attack on all people who are suffering from mental health issues and that we are going for the jugular here, I think that is really, really not proper. I do not think you have any basis to say that. The final point about innuendo and suggestions, my question to the Minister is this. Did the Minister or anybody in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ring the bell in Government to say, actually, section 20 of the CPC applies for TraceTogether well before October 2020?”
“But what we do know is that the Prime Minister then apologised, not in January, not in February, not in October, November or December, but in March, after we had dealt with the issue and that is my point. That is a significant delay.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note Minister Vivian's objection. Let me just share some details about what happened in January and February in this House, in the course of that debate. Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai had asked the Minister, "When did you discover that your statement was going to be affected by the CPC?" Minister did not answer that question. This was in January. The point here is there were Ministers who were in this House who knew that actually they were already in receipt of knowledge in October 2020 about the fact that TraceTogether applied to the CPC. The Minister admitted that. But that was a month later in February, if I recall correctly, February 2021, where the Minister said – let me pull out the Hansard – I may just have a bit of it here when it was checked: "At the end of October..." – these are Minister Vivian's words – "...when I was asked basically what did I spend November doing? As I said, double checking the legislation and then having, among sleepless nights and conversations, asking: 'Do we carve it out? How do we do it?' So, that occupied us in November." That is what you said. I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that there is a significant delay in time before answers are given by the Government. Was Minister Vivian the only one looking at TraceTogether and the applicability of TraceTogether in May of 2020? I think Minister Shanmugam had a discussion with the Mayor of New York, I believe, talking about privacy concerns, TraceTogether concerns, and my point is, did no one in the Government consider the applicability of section 20 to the CPC? We do not know that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. A timely intervention, I must say. I think on the first point, I have stated the difference of opinion I have with the Minister for Law with regard to the use of the word and the reason why the word was important in the context of what the COP were investigating. On the second point about mental illness, this is a question of fact. This was communicated to us. We recorded it in our notes when she shared her condition and I felt that it was an important point for the COP to consider. It was not a case of putting someone with such an issue out to dry, as the Minister is very enthusiastic to portray. The second clarification about lying in Parliament, I think I dealt with this. It was really a question of why I did not stand up when she repeated the lie. I had no confirmation as to whether she had dealt with the matter of her rape with her parents. And I was not going to stand up and call her out and say, "No, these are the reasons why that lie had to be said." I think I made that apparent to the COP.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me address the Minister for Law's point, which frankly does not really add much to this debate. But what I would say, and this is what I said in my first comment to the Prime Minister was, it is about the selective standard that is applied. It is normal for the PAP to say, "Look, be sensitive when a matter of this natures comes up." In referencing the word "rape", my point was this was how serious the matter was for us, as leaders to think about. And I believe I was asked at the COP, "Why didn't you respond earlier? Why didn't you react earlier?" And I said I should have reacted earlier but because I have an MP who had made such a serious point something of a personal nature, I also needed to make sure that she had addressed the matter with her parents. Because, in the words of the Prime Minister, you have to look at the circumstances and the spouses' and the families' conditions. So, I think the Minister for Law is missing the point here. It was not an insistence because of a lack of sensitivity vis-à-vis the word "rape". That was not it. It was the circumstances we were in to make a decision in double quick time on what to do going forward. I hope that clarifies the matter. I am not sure what the second clarification was from the Law Minister. If he can repeat it, I will deal with it.”
“" I must say this statement came after the storm of TraceTogether had passed; and that just reinforces the earlier point that I spoke of. The Prime Minister spoke about the Leader of the Opposition – what I did, what I knew. I think I had handled this in the course of my press conference where I took 12 questions: when did the affair start; what information I had secured from the parties concerned. And I believe I answered those fully. If the Prime Minister has specific questions for me, I will try and address them here. On the point of Raeesah Khan, again, I was quite careful not to say anything which would get into the investigation per se, which is still ongoing. But the matter here is about the point the Prime Minister raised about sensitivity. The Prime Minister believes that it is appropriate to respond sensitively, given the circumstances at hand. And the point I was making was we were dealing here with someone who said she had been raped, and I did not sense that sensitivity coming from the PAP at that time. And that is the point I was trying to make. On other matters, I think there will be further questions from WP MPs. I may come in and follow up with more questions in due course. Thank you, Speaker.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The first point is a point of order. I respect what Speaker mentioned about not making extended speeches, but I was merely doing exactly what had transpired about one month ago when PAP MPs made extended speeches, specifically the Prime Minister, in the course of a Ministerial Statement in response to a question, I believe from backbencher Ms Denise Phua. So, I do seek your indulgence, Speaker, I was not going anything beyond what was already carried out by a PAP MP in the course of a Ministerial Statement last month. I understand what Standing Order 23 says, I understand that a debate is not to ensue and they cannot be more than clarifications, but nothing special was undertaken by me in the course of me asking questions just now. I just want to put that on record. In terms of the Prime Minister's replies, I think some of them still do not go into the details of matters that Singaporeans are actually quite concerned about, but I will address some responses which the Prime Minister gave. First, on TraceTogether, that this has been extensively debated and so forth. Not particularly so. There are matters for which questions still arise. I think the Prime Minister made a Statement well after the TraceTogether issue was debated in Parliament, I think this was in March 2021, where he apologised and said, let me quote, I have to be very clear about this matter. This was in a The Straits Times article on 14 March, well after we had discussed TraceTogether. The Prime Minister came out to say, "I think we made a mistake. The app was made for contact tracing, but under the law, the Police have powers to ask for information for criminal investigations. We should have said so upfront; we did not, and we came out and said so.”
“And the Prime Minister did not bat an eyelid in giving the Leader of the Opposition a sermon on Confucian ethics, morality and shame, even though at the material time, he would have been aware of the affair between Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Member of Parliament Cheng Li Hui. Can the Prime Minister please elaborate how the Tan Chuan-Jin affair with an MP was different from the circumstances and conditions of former PAP Speaker Michael Palmer's affair with a People's Association (PA) member, which Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean then had said, had to be dealt with, I quote, "decisively". Finally, why was there a need for so much time to plan for the care of Marine Parade, and specifically Kembangan-Chai Chee residents? In other cases of resignations of PAP MPs, such as Michael Palmer, President Halimah, David Ong and Senior Minister Tharman, nothing close to that length of time was required. Could the Prime Minister detail for us what exact steps were taken between February and July 2023 to arrange for the care of Marine Parade residents? If that was the crux of the issue, then even if the planning for the care of Marine Parade residents was a proper justification for Tan Chuan-Jin to remain a Marine Parade MP for five months, why was he not asked to step down as Speaker first and a new Speaker elected? If he had stepped down as Speaker, could he still not have continued as a Marine Parade MP until the arrangements were made? And before I round off, Mr Speaker, just one additional question. How were Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui counselled immediately after Prime Minister was informed about the affair in 2020? Did he personally counsel them and how often did he check in on the status of the relationship thereafter? 2.05 pm”
“My question is if the Prime Minister knew of the affair in 2020, why were Speaker Tan and Cheng Li Hui allowed to be on the same Standing Select Committee of Parliament, namely the House Committee, after GE 2020, when the Prime Minister was already aware of the affair? Would not their being on the same Committee have resulted in more interactions between them than necessary or given official reasons to be together? To this end, has the Prime Minister checked, since he knew of the affair in 2020, how many foreign trips have both Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and Cheng Li Hui have been on – at the taxpayers' expense – and was he not aware of them? My next question: the Prime Minister stated at the press conference in response to a reporter's question that, I quote, "as for comparison with Michael Palmer, I think it depends on the situation of the case and I said you've got to look at the circumstances, spouses, the family's condition and how you manage this as sensitively as you can and yet do your duty, and it depends on the person's response as well as the specifics, so I don't think it's possible to make direct comparisons". I note the Prime Minister's reference to such sensitivity, an eminently reasonable approach to take with delicate matters. However, the PAP selectively applies these standards, expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the Opposition seek to make the same point. When former MP Raeesah Khan revealed to the WP leaders that she was a rape victim, sensitivity was not even considered by the Committee of Privileges in accounting for the delay in addressing Raeesah's lies to Parliament.”
“The PAP Government took almost nine months before it disclosed to Singaporeans that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) sought to collect TraceTogether data for an investigation in May 2020, even as the PAP continued to assert right through the rest of the year that TraceTogether was only to be used for contact tracing. Unlike as represented by the Prime Minister, these are not events that I quote, "are clustered together", all coming at one go. Instead, they reveal a pattern of behaviour over a period of time of the PAP engaging in half-truths on matters of significant public interest. And this behaviour goes a long way to explain why there is real disquiet among Singaporeans today when the PAP invokes the memory of Pioneer Generation PAP leaders and talks about trust. Sir, last month the Prime Minister informed this House that he has to set the standards of what is ethical and what is proper, and that the PAP Government does not need an ethics advisor. Can I invite the Prime Minister to reconsider his position in view of the PAP's pattern of behaviour in this term of Government, especially when a potentially embarrassing issue comes up? I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister, in view of the complexity of government and governance today, it would not be embarrassing for the Government to consider the appointment of an ethics advisor. Sir, my clarifications on the former MP Cheng Li Hui and Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin matter are as follows: the Prime Minister said, in comparing the hot mic issue with the inappropriate relationship, I quote, "in comparison, the relationship was the more serious matter as he was the Speaker and she was an MP, and there should not be a relationship".”
“The public came to know about the CPIB investigation more than a month later when investigations were completed, with CPIB confirming no criminal offence was disclosed. Second, there is considerable public disquiet about the CPIB releasing a statement on 12 July, which stated that Minister Iswaran was assisting with investigations while omitting to disclose the fact that Minister Iswaran had been arrested a day before. In a parallel universe, Sir, there is a perception that if a Singaporean or Singaporean company took such a cavalier and breezy approach with critical facts under today's PAP, they can expect to receive a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) direction from a PAP Minister for perpetuating false statements of fact. Has the Prime Minister inquired with the CPIB why it undertook such a course of action that brought unnecessary attention to the CPIB's processes and, by extension, even its impartiality, involving the release of statements in the public interest? If he did not, would he consider to do so? Thirdly, during COVID-19, the public was belatedly informed by a Minister in this House, that his senior Cabinet colleagues were aware by October 2020 that previous Government assurances on TraceTogether being solely used for contact tracing were effectively false statements of fact. Misrepresentations had hitherto been made by various Government Ministers and possibly in this House even, before October 2020, and they stood uncorrected for months.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two buckets of clarification – first, with regard to the standards of the PAP that the Prime Minister spoke of; and second, with regard to the circumstances involving the departure of the former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and former MP Cheng Li Hui. Sir, there has been much public disquiet about the transmission of information surrounding Minister Iswaran's arrest by the CPIB and, separately, on the affair between former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and MP Cheng Li Hui. This is particularly with regard to what the Prime Minister knew and what the Prime Minister did about it over a period of almost three years before coming clean on the matter. Sir, in this term of government, the Government has either been slow to clear the air or been less than upfront and forthright with Singaporeans when it had to deal with potentially embarrassing issues. I will give three examples that capture this point, and my clarifications will be contained therein. Firstly, in May this year, the public was not informed forthwith that CPIB had been instructed to look into the Ridout Road rentals by two Ministers. On 23 May, the Prime Minister released the statement stating Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean had been appointed to establish whether there had been any wrongdoing in the Ridout Road rentals in order to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government. What the Prime Minister did not tell the public but was made known by way of a statement from the Prime Minister's Office written in the third person on 28 June was that the Prime Minister had directed the CPIB to investigate the Ridout Road matter on 17 May – a full six days before his 23 May statement that omitted to mention that he had ordered a CPIB investigation into two of his Ministers.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not referring to the offence. In my second clarification, I believe I referred to the total circumstances of the timing of this video coming out. It is not the offence per se. I mean, the Police investigates a number of matters before it can even conclude, sometimes, an offence is disclosed. I am just asking, in the case of the personality involved, the Speaker of the House, a very senior member of Government, whether there would be some thought placed on the circumstances of how that video came to be circulated in public. I was not speaking of specific disclosure of an offence but the total circumstances of that query, whether there could be something more to it. I have had some individuals come up to me questioning whether there is a false flag in this; all sorts of issues have come up insofar as the public is concerned. So, it is a matter I am raising to the Leader for her consideration.”
“I note the Leader's comment on the matter. I think the question here is the duration of time that it took for that video to become public. I am not sure whether the Leader considers that something to be suspicious. There is also the matter of what we came to know later of a long-running affair between Speaker and another MP – whether in total, there are circumstances which the authorities should actually look into.”
“I thank the Leader for the statement. I just have a question on the remarks the Leader made about the video that was circulated on or around – I think it was 7 July, she mentioned, and that it was somewhat modified audibly to hear the expletive former Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin uttered. Would the Leader be minded to refer that matter to the Police to investigate and to inquire who released that video? Because as the Leader said, I do not believe anybody in this House picked up that language.”
“Yes, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Much obliged. [(proc text) Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong rose for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, can we record our dissent for the second amendment, please?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a quick series of questions for the NMP. He raised the matter of Rui Yong again and I think my speech made it quite clear where I stood on the matter. Just to confirm the point, I think he put the question as to whether Rui Yong has been disparaging and so forth. I have not made the point in my speech that discipline and all these other important things in sports are not important. But I would like to ask the Member does he advocate a system where it is "two strikes and you are out"? I mean, the episode can be resolved in other ways and I have made my point why I think it could be resolved in other ways. Would he join me in advocating for more dispute resolution mechanisms that can build bridges and, in his words, "unite" rather than "divide"? Rui Yong is a flag bearer for Singapore. And I think we can consider how best to rehabilitate him and keep working on ensuring that "we come together as a nation with a view to sporting excellence". Will the Member join me in supporting him?”