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 9 of 36.
“I would like to thank the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) for his interventions. I think I have mentioned a few times in my speech and I was careful to do it to restate that it is important for athletes to abide by standards of discipline. Soh Rui Yong is my resident. So, I am appealing also as his Member of Parliament. And if SNOC can take another look at him, I am not out of order, I believe, to raise this matter. And – given that the matter actually goes far beyond, in the eyes of many, just to be an issue of transgressions – I hope more senior members of our sporting fraternity can come in and try to lower temperatures, so that athletes like Soh Rui Yong can participate and fly the flag proudly.”
“I would like to thank the Nominated Member for his queries. While I note the points he is making, they do not detract from the larger point vis-à-vis those two issues which I raised, which was that SNOC has a track record of looking and displaying a forgiving attitude towards athletes who may have committed transgressions. I think that is the key point, which I hope SNOC and the Ministry also can take into account for other athletes who may have fallen short.”
“I believe that politicians should not be directly involved in sports and, when they do get involved, it would be for such purposes – as a facilitator to raise the profile of our sports and sportsmen, generating support from corporates, society and parents, and to bring some much-needed wisdom and equanimity into disputes, such as those involving Rui Yong and SNOC. For their part, I am of the view that our sports administrators can afford to take an elevated approach as they have done in the past and be more big-hearted, especially when you consider their collective seniority and contributions to Singapore sports. To begin with, a more enlightened and mature approach from all but, particularly SNOC – which does not just hold all the cards but is, clearly, the party in which the power relationship between athlete and state representation resides – can make a massive difference. I hope this matter can be brought to an amicable resolution with better engagement by a mediator from the Ministry. I ask the Minister to take the initiative and support my call. Our sporting ecosystem is strengthened when we focus on sporting values, sportsmanship and bringing glory to Singapore. I support the Motion filed by Member for Sengkang Jamus Lim and Member for Aljunied Muhamad Faisal Manap.”
“Both these athletes were involved in criminal offences. Soh Rui Yong has not been. So, why is SNOC's attitude towards Rui Yong different? The core of the schism between SNOC and Rui Yong appears to be a spat that arose when Rui Yong challenged the SNOC's nomination of another athlete for an International Sportsman award. Rui Yong disputes the nomination as a matter of principle, I would think, and he disagrees with the facts put forward. A very senior SNOC figure testified in a civil trial against Rui Yong and senior management figures in Singapore sports had made online posts criticising Rui Yong's actions. There is a widespread belief that the latest non-selection is a carry-over of that original spat. One cannot help but feel that things have turned personal, with SNOC taking a far stronger stand against Rui Yong, compared to other athletes who have committed transgressions as if to teach him a lesson for his outspokenness. The current impasse makes everyone look like who they are really not. SNOC has done much work in promoting Singapore sports, bringing sponsors on board and raising the esteem of sports in the minds and hearts of Singaporeans and many parents in a very big way. But in the eyes of many Singaporeans, on the Soh Rui Yong matter, SNOC, as the highest sporting body in Singapore, comes out looking petty, even as many also believe that Rui Yong needs to learn from the past and draw a line and focus on his sporting career. It is time to move on from the previous episode involving the lawsuit and I hope the Ministry officials, if not the Minister-in-charge of sports, can intercede to prevent parties from reaching a point where Singapore sport cuts off its nose to spite its own face.”
“Thirty-six pages of documents allegedly leaked to The Straits Times detailed posts and comments that SNOC took issue with. According to a Rice Media article dated 17 June this year which was titled, "Soh Rui Yong isn't perfect and he should not have to be", Rui Yong responded to SNOC's objection by removing the post in question. This did not placate SNOC and he was still not selected. The same article says that Rui Yong was not given a chance to clarify his post before the SEA Games' Appeals Committee. He was quoted as saying, "I look forward to proving myself on the track and I hope the Committee would see sense in putting me on the team for the Asian Games. And on my part, I also endeavour to be more careful." The Olympic Charter states that National Olympic Committees' selection of athletes shall not just be based on sporting performance, but an ability to serve as an example to the sporting youths of one's country. I wish to restate that it is not unreasonable for SNOC to expect our sportsmen and women to exhibit discipline. SNOC must have the authority to bar athletes after a disciplinary panel has heard the affected athlete out, consistent with the principles of natural justice. But I ask that SNOC take a more forgiving attitude towards Soh Rui Yong. Indeed, SNOC has a track record of forgiving athletes that have fallen short of being examples for our sporting youths and allowed them to compete for Singapore. For example, a Silat exponent was allowed to represent Singapore at the last SEA Games despite a drink-driving conviction in 2022; a swimmer who had won a silver medal at the last SEA Games had previously been disciplined for consuming controlled drugs and had his prestigious spexScholarship suspended for one month.”
“Given the emotions involved in sport and the popularity of football in Singapore, I can understand Mr Tan's passion, even as it was always going to be matched by some of our long-suffering football fans. We can all accept that sport ignites passions. We win together, we lose together, we celebrate together and we hurt together. To this end, I wish to speak about the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC)'s non-selection of long distance runner Soh Rui Yong for the upcoming Asian Games. Rui Yong is the national record holder for the 5,000 metres, 10,000 metres, half marathon and marathon events. My last substantive communication with him was to congratulate him on his performance at the recently concluded SEA Games. Not only did he win silver for the 10,000 metres, he earned plaudits in Singapore and the region for a spontaneous display of sportsmanship, passing his own cup of water to his Indonesian opponent, whom he was in neck-to-neck with, when the Indonesian dropped his water bottle. Prior to the last SEA Games, Rui Yong was left out of the SEA Games by the SNOC in 2019 and 2022 for disciplinary reasons, when he was at the prime of his athletic life. He had previously won the gold medal for Singapore in the marathon at the SEA Games, both in 2015 and 2017. His latest non-selection will seriously curtail his ability to run and medal for Singapore ever again. Unlike fixed term suspensions for violent conduct or criminal offences, SNOC's blanket non-selection forces his sporting career into limbo for an unknown period. From publicly available information, the latest non-selection for the Asian Games is a result of public comments he made online.”
“His sense of universal justice was captured for posterity in his famous words, "Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam, while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?" Arising from his personal stand against the war, he was systematically denied a boxing licence in every state in the US and stripped of his passport. As a result, he did not fight professionally from March 1967 to October 1970, when he was aged 25 to almost 29 – the best years of his sporting life – as his legal battle worked its way through the US criminal justice system until his conviction was overturned in 1971. In many sports, people wear their hearts on their sleeves. In Singapore's recent past, national footballer Noh Alam Shah was one such individual. Whenever I can, like many Singaporeans, I make it a point to watch the Singapore Lions in action. Noh Alam Shah gave his heart and soul when in national colours. But he had a temperamental side and was involved in violent conduct – conduct which cannot be condoned. Once, he was banned by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) from football for 12 months, with the sentence cut to seven months on appeal. Passion is not just restricted to athletes. After Singapore's 7-0 loss to Malaysia in football at the last SEA Games, much fan frustration was directed at the management team of FAS. One commentator on Instagram told the current FAS Acting President Bernard Tan to resign. Bernard Tan responded by challenging the individual to meet face-to-face, something he later apologised for.”
“That is the incredible unifying power of sports and why our athletes, regardless of their sport, play a huge role in nation-building and deserve our support and utmost respect. On a more personal note, I would like to congratulate Aljunied-Hougang Town Councillor, Mr Francis Seet and his daughter Tiffany. Despite starting the sport of fencing only a few years ago, she brought home, as part of the foil team, a gold medal from the recent SEA Games. Madam, my contribution to this Motion is focused on the resolution of disputes between sports authorities and athletes. I speak with reference to one of my residents, SEA Games silver medalist, Soh Rui Yong, and his non-selection for the upcoming Asian Games in October. Right off the bat, it is important to recognise that there are certain obligations involved when an athlete competes under the national flag. There are rules to follow. However, as they are highly competitive individuals, it is not unusual to find that sports attract its fair share of the strong-minded and the strong-willed. In fact, this element of their character is sometimes the "X" factor that also pushes them to surpass their opponents. History is replete with such headstrong characters, such as the great Muhammad Ali, whose showmanship both in and out of the ring and incredible ability combined to define him. To say that he routinely thumbed his nose at authority is probably an understatement. In March 1966, he consciously objected to being drafted to serve in the Vietnam War and earned the ire of those in authority, which he referred to as the "white establishment".”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion on sporting success filed by the Member for Sengkang GRC, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and the Member for Aljunied GRC, Muhammad Faisal bin Abdul Manap. I also join my Workers' Party colleagues, Members of this House and all Singaporeans in extending our well wishes to Team Singapore athletes who competed at the Southeast Asian (SEA) Games and the Southeast Asian (SEA) Paralympic Games last month. At every international sporting event, a few Singaporean athletes stand out. At the last SEA Games, Shanti Pereira's name was on everyone's lips and deservedly so, as she took her place as the fastest sprinter in Southeast Asia. Feng Tianwei's grit was a source of pride for many at her swan song at the last Commonwealth Games. And there are certainly athletes who wish they could have done better. To these sportsmen and women, I say: failure makes future success even sweeter; so, stay in the fight and know that Singapore will always be rooting for you. To this end, I want to express my support for the national Under-22 football team which could do with more support from everyone right now. A few results during the SEA Games may have been hard to swallow, but I look forward to Singapore football putting this tournament behind them. There are a few sports that can unite Singaporeans nationally like football can. We saw that during the 2020 Suzuki Cup semi-final when the Lions, with the team down to eight men, fought hard, despite the odds. In doing so, they earned the respect of so many Singaporeans. Sportsmen and women have that incredible gift, the ability to lift their compatriots in a way very few expressions of human achievement can.”
“Two points, Mr Deputy Speaker. Number one, WP is prepared to contest any constituency on an SMC basis. That is our position in the manifesto, we have laid it out. We went to elections in 2020 with that in our manifesto. The second point on the EBRC, I think it will be helpful, at least, going forward, for the Government to put its weight and significant influence behind a proposal to the EBRC to please produce a more detailed report when boundaries are redrawn. I think in the past, we had boundary reports which extended to 30 to 50 pages, explaining why boundaries were redrawn in particular ways. The latest EBRC report, I think is in the single digits for the number of pages. It just tells you this constituency, this number, that is, it was this number; now, it is this number, this is the new boundary, finished. So, you are going to continue to have cynicism about the GRC system and it is not going to stop. Insofar as this Motion is concerned, I think we have laid our position out quite evidently. I have given my views on where the GRC system has been helpful for society and I think it is important for me to state that. But it would be remiss of me not to highlight to the public and to Singaporeans at large, why the WP takes the position that it does.”
“I certainly raised the point. Firstly, I do not know exactly, precisely, the origins of "gerrymandering", the term. But I think, like many people, you will know it when you see it. And I think we have seen it for all and sundry for the two SMCs I had mentioned over the last decade – Fengshan, Joo Chiat. Yes, there could be gerrymandering in SMCs too. But indeed, what we have been dealing with is the GRC system. And the coincidences are quite uncanny and not just the last decade, but I referred to the table that Mr Low put forward in this House. Every constituency, where there is a tight fight between the PAP and WP, what happens? It is gone. So, until we can have some assurance from the PAP, will you stop using the GRC for this purpose?”
“I am wondering what this session is turning into – an examination? First, Mr Leong asked Minister Chan about the 1984 speech.”
“The majority of respondents embraced religious diversity and adopt colour blindness in the case of social interaction and employment. In addition, most, including racial minorities, perceive little to no discrimination and social exclusion in public spaces in Singapore, which is an important sign for racial and religious harmony. There are also high levels of inter-racial and religious trust in Singapore alongside little perception of inter-racial and religious tension. Most respondents also indicate interest and willingness to interact with and get to know other cultures. These findings demonstrate a strong foothold of multicultural values in Singapore, with most Singaporeans internalising narratives of multiracialism and racial harmony." I do believe the GRC system had some part to play in this. I will concede that point because it forces Opposition parties to field a multiracial slate for the reasons the Minister mentioned. You are already going to be at the starting line without votes if you do not field a multiracial slate. But the reason why I pulled out these quotes was to put into perspective with respect Member Murali's experiences and some of the issues that the Minister raised to just provide a balance to some of the arguments on race and religion issues. But fundamentally, there are systems out there which can accommodate, in my view, a racially balanced Parliament and, more fundamentally, with regard to the first issue, we need to understand where does the Minister stand on how the GRC system has been employed in the past.”
“But the younger voters have not lived through the same experiences." At the end of GE 2020, Minister Shanmugam came out to say, and I quote him: "I think the older generation of Singaporeans take one approach on how issues of race and religion are discussed and they have a framework within the law, but it is also clear that the younger generation takes a different approach, and I think we need to find a way in which those aspirations and viewpoints can be dealt with because the younger generation of Singaporeans are going to be in charge of Singapore and their views on these things ought to be discussed, needs a substantial degree of attention too." I would suggest that the conversation also has moved and it has moved toward greater race neutrality. And I say this with reference to the point the Minister raised about the CNA-IPS survey. I have seen those survey results. Yes, nobody is making the argument that it is perfect, that racial incidents will not happen from time to time. I think they will. But that does not represent who Singaporeans are. I am sure the Minister would have also seen the IPS survey in conjunction with onepeople.sg, on the indicators of racial and religious harmony, comparing survey results from 2018 and 2013. Let me just pull out some very short quotations from this survey. It is not a perfect survey set, for sure, but this is what it says: "Analysing the results by respondents' age, millennials were found to be more welcoming of racial diversity." This is pulled out from page 52 from this IPS report. Conclusion of the report: "In general, our results show that Singapore is faring well when it comes to inter-racial and inter-religious relations.”
“So, I do not think the PAP can walk away from any topic on the GRC by saying multiracialism is important for Singapore. We all agree with that. But what of the matter when the rubber meets the road, when we look at how the boundaries are redrawn – the GRC system is used for that purpose as well. That is the conclusion I draw, respectfully. So, when alternatives are raised, I think we have heard of – they were only briefly covered – mixed proportional representation and so on. Going by what has happened in 2017, when we introduced the reserved Presidency, I think it shows, indeed, the GRC is not a perfect system and there are other alternatives that can be considered. How would – not just Minister Chan, but even the Nominated Members of Parliament who spoke – he defend the GRC system from the gerrymandering? This is not an imaginary issue. It is a real issue that has happened repeatedly. And that is a hallmark of the way the PAP has employed the GRC system. And that leads to cynicism and the argument, which I believe some would make every now and then about the problems of the GRC system, notwithstanding the very well-meaning and principled argument about the importance of multiracialism. So, that is my first point. My second point deals with the introduction and the reasons behind why the GRC system was introduced. This was a quote that came after the 1984 GE and the reason why the GRC system came to bear was, I quote, "a continuation in the trend of younger voters preferring candidates who are better qualified and suited to serve their own needs because of their education, ability, culture and languages, including dialects. The older voters voted for the party rather than the candidate out of experience and habit. They accepted the need for a multiracial Parliament.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you to Minister Chan for his speech, laying out the reasons why the People's Action Party (PAP) will not be supporting the Motion. The Workers' Party (WP) has restated its position most recently in 2008 when Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann put forward a Motion on the Parliamentary Elections Act. So, I did not want to speak because the main subject matter would really cover what Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim had already covered. Over the course of the Motion, we heard the restatement of the party's GE 2020 manifesto position, which we stand by. But what I welcome from what the Minister said is that the GRC system is imperfect. In all the speeches from the PAP Members of Parliament and the Nominated Members of Parliament, I did not hear a defence to the argument that the GRC system is ridden on for gerrymandering purposes. There was no convincing argument to me why Fengshan comes out when it is a tight SMC, Joo Chiat is included into a GRC when it is a tight SMC in previous elections. This is another concern, another fundamental core concern that the opposition, specifically, the WP has about the GRC system. We understand the point. I do not think anybody in this House disagrees about the importance of multiracialism. I take the points that Minister Chan made, and I think he made them respectfully; and respectfully, I agree with the fundamental issues with regard to a multiracial society. But when the GRC system becomes a political football, as it has been and, as Mr Low Thia Khiang also pointed out in 1996 when the size of GRCs increased to six, he put up a table in this House showing how the tight SMCs inevitably or invariably become GRCs, making it more difficult for the Opposition.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer to the points I made about related legislation, FICA and POFMA. I brought them up because of the statement released by MHA when the Bill came up for First Reading, the comparison that was made about this being a suite of legislation. But I take the Minister's point about pursuing a query I made in my speech through a Parliamentary Question. My question relates to the point I made about the scam that affected my resident earlier, specifically with regard to e-commerce websites that are part of this whole chain of scam activities. The scammer uses Telegram. Then, they get them on WhatsApp. Then, from WhatsApp, you get a payment through PayNow. There are multiple platforms to chase up. The question I have is with e-commerce platforms like Qoo10, when there is an encouragement for an innocent person to be part of an enterprise where you click on a feature of that website which raises the profile of some products on sale, for example. How do the codes of practice, for example – what sort of influence will they have on these online service providers and these e-commerce companies to address that sort of problem which actually tends to direct more traffic to their website anyway? I am just trying to understand how the codes of practices will compel a certain behaviour to address the scams we have to deal with.”
“To this end, it cannot be left to agencies like the Anti-Scam Command, the Police or even legislation such as this Bill, to serve as the first line of defence for Singaporeans. The general public has to be far more vigilant with respect to its engagements online, especially when it comes to the transfer of funds and engagement with individuals who are not known to them. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, the introductory words of the explanatory statement to the Bill say that this Bill seeks to counter online criminal activity and protect against online harms. Currently, the target of the Bill appears to be scams and other criminal activity, but the fact that the explanatory statement says that the Bill seeks to also protect against online harms suggests that activities other than criminal ones have been contemplated by the drafters of the Bill. Could the Minister shed light on what other activities the Bill could potentially address or conceivably address? Could the Minister let us know what other scenarios beyond criminal activity were discussed or are being deliberated? For example, the Government previously mentioned that it would seek to address "cancel culture". Could this be one of the areas that is being contemplated as potentially coming within the scope of the Bill? In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is very different from POFMA and FICA, which the WP did not support. POFMA and FICA carry the possibility of Ministers depriving Singaporeans of hearing valid alternative viewpoints without adequate judicial checks. OCHA is targeted at protecting members of the public from scams and offences that can cause financial and other harm. If it remains focused on this target, the WP will continue to be in favour of its implementation.”
“To this end, Mr Deputy Speaker, how would these codes of practice apply in practice to disrupt online scams? I note the Minister gave a broad outline in her opening speech, but let me suggest a particular context for consideration. The days of receiving phone calls from people pretending to be Immigration, Ministry of Health (MOH) or bank officers are fast becoming yesterday's scams. Today's online scams that lure individuals – one that was recounted to me at this Monday's Meet-the-People Session just two days ago – are very sophisticated. A resident was lured by an offer of a supposedly genuine job to raise the profile of products sold on e-commerce platforms such as Qoo10. The resident received a payment for services rendered on the first day of her assignment. Convinced that the arrangement was legitimate as money had been transferred to the resident, the resident got trapped in a quasi-investment scam, hoping to see more returns and thereby increased her engagement with the scammer. The resident at my Meet-the-People Session on Monday told me that she lost more than $300,000 in total. The scammer actually paid her close to $1,000 on the first day of the engagement, winning her trust. I am sure Members have heard similar sad outcomes for some of our residents and their residents. Can the Minister share how this Bill and the codes of practice will operate to disrupt such scammers, particularly with reference to e-commerce companies, or online service providers through whom such scams are unknowingly perpetrated? While it is hoped that this Bill will serve as an important line of defence to disrupt online scams, the future is even more ominous, with artificial intelligence (AI) portending the prospect of a far more intelligent scammer than ever before.”
“Overall, the WP's assessment is that OCHA is very different from POFMA and FICA when it comes to the online harms targeted. This Bill deserves the support of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, this brings me to the third part of my speech, where I have some questions for the Minister on specific points of concern. My first question for the Minister is, what exactly is the difference between the use in Part 2, specifically clause 6(1), of the words "reasonably suspects" compared to the word "suspects" in limb A and limb B of the clause specifically? MHA's press release acknowledges that the word "suspects" has a lower threshold than "reasonably suspects", but what is the practical effect of this difference in the context of combating online crimes? Perhaps the Minister could explain this distinction using the standards of proof used in our Courts. Could the standards on a balance of probabilities, prima facie or reasonable doubt help us understand the difference better? Mr Deputy Speaker, may also ask the Minister to give more details about the codes of practice? While in principle, a proactive approach in having codes of practice is good, the fact that there are sanctions for non-compliance reiterates the importance, if not the critical role, designated online services and other intermediary services play to disrupt scammers. Under Part 4 of the Bill, the Government may issue Rectification Notices and Implementation Directives to designated online services. Non-compliance with notices or directives attract prosecution and severe fines that can go into the millions of dollars. Could the Minister give details of how codes of practice will be developed, including what consultations and engagements will be undertaken with the industry?”
“Surely, that smacks of the Government wanting to punish the publishers of the website, rather than merely wanting to correct falsehoods in a specific article. The Singapore Government must have many tools at its disposal to ensure that its viewpoint is available to Singaporeans. Is it really in the best interest of Singapore Citizens that the Government blocks not only an article the Government deems false, but an entire publication? What if The New York Times or The Financial Times were to republish the Asia Sentinel article or any other POFMA-sanctioned article? Would the Singapore Government seriously mean to block either The New York Times or The Financial Times if it refuses to publish the Correction Notices in the required format? Would this blocking be in the best interest of Singaporeans? Mr Deputy Speaker, let me move on to the second part of my speech on my support for the current Bill. The WP agrees that it is necessary to protect Singaporeans from scams and other crimes that may be perpetrated using online methods. I believe it is right for the authorities to have available the use of Part 2 Directions against those who control relevant material or websites, online service providers, Internet service providers and app stores. I am sure that legitimate business operators in these areas would have no objection to cooperating with Singapore authorities to protect those who live here from online criminal harms. In particular, I support the development of codes of practice for designated online services as provided for in Part 4. Ultimately, a proactive approach rather than a reactive one is certainly important in view of how quickly online scams evolve.”
“" Asia Sentinel took certain actions to comply, but the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) said, "While Asia Sentinel carried the Correction Notices, this was not done in compliance with the requirements of the Correction Direction for the respective Correction Notices to be situated at the top of the article and at the top of the main page of the website." I believe that Asia Sentinel placed the Correction Notice at the top of the article but did not place it at the top of the main page of the website. Because Asia Sentinel did not comply fully with the Government's order, Internet service providers in Singapore are ordered to block access in Singapore to Asia Sentinel's website. The article and the website are no longer accessible by computers and smart phones with Singapore Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. In particular, I find it draconian to expect a news website to place a Correction Direction at the top of the main page of the website. Surely, a Correction Notice situated at the top of the article should be sufficient if the Government's concern is for Singaporeans to be able to read the Government's point of view in contrast to that of the news publication. My concern is not for Asia Sentinel in itself. They are a foreign website. It is of not much concern to me whether they lose readership or revenue by being blocked in Singapore. What I do care about is that I and other Singaporeans cannot access Asia Sentinel to read the article in question and decide what we think about it for ourselves. Indeed, anyone using a computer with a Singapore IP address can no longer access any articles published on Asia Sentinel, even those that have nothing to do with Singapore.”
“The WP proposed more than 40 amendments which we opined would allow FICA to achieve its aims of curbing unwanted foreign influence, while at the same time ensuring appropriate checks on the Government that protect the rights of Singaporeans. As for POFMA, the WP opposed it because POFMA entrusts the Ministers and their alternate authorities to decide what is truth and what is a falsehood. In certain cases, they would not be neutral parties, but would be making decisions as interested parties. For instance, if a Government decision is criticised in an article published on a website, it is the Minister himself or herself who decides whether the article is true or false. The Minister would be able to make such a decision with limited oversight by the Courts. The High Court cannot inquire into the merits of a Minister's POFMA decision. In addition, the powers under POFMA are extreme. If a Correction Order is made, an entire website is blocked, not just the offending article. My view is that when websites are blocked under POFMA, it is Singaporeans who lose out. Singaporeans are not able to read alternate viewpoints. If such alternate viewpoints are false, the Government can counter those viewpoints by publishing the facts as it sees them in the mainstream local media, both in print as well as online. The recent case involving Asia Sentinel is instructive on how POFMA can be deployed by the Government. The Government recently issued a POFMA Correction Direction to Asia Sentinel, a California-registered publication, over an article titled, "Singapore kills a Chicken to Scare the Monkeys.”
“Three points connect these statutes: firstly, they relate to online content; secondly, the Government says that these laws are needed to protect Singaporeans from harm; thirdly, the Government can implement broad, powerful measures to restrict Singaporeans' access to online content and to impose severe penalties on individuals and entities for non-compliance. But these statutes differ in critical ways. They target exceedingly diverse online content. OCHA targets online content that could result in Singaporeans being victims of scams and other crimes. POFMA and FICA restrict the access of Singaporeans to information that the Government considers false, manipulative or constitutes foreign interference in our domestic affairs. Reasonable people can disagree with the Government on what types of online content are harmful and whether Singaporeans need to be protected from them. Reasonable people can also desire that the Government not be given draconian powers that could be used, whether now or by future governments, to stifle points of view different from those of the government of the day. Regarding FICA, the WP did not vote in favour of FICA as promulgated by the Government. We were not against FICA in principle. We understand that there are foreign actors who wish Singapore harm and that the Government should have powers to combat and counter malignant forces, but our view is that FICA confers extraordinary powers which need the most robust of independent oversight by the judicial arm of our Government, namely, the Supreme Court. The WP was also of the view that the wording in FICA such as "is likely to" and "where the Minister suspects" creates low thresholds of proof that could be unfairly used against individuals or entities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I speak on the substantive aspects of this Bill, I want to make the point that not all legislation passed in this House targeting online content is equal. The Workers' Party (WP) will support rules aimed at online content when they are in Singaporeans' interest, such as with this Bill, but not otherwise. My speech is in three parts. First, I will reiterate why the WP did not support previous Bills concerning online content. It is important to highlight to Singaporeans that each piece of legislation needs to be scrutinised on its own merits. The Government must be made to justify each statute it wishes to pass by this House, including those that restrict Singaporeans' access to online content. Second, I will set out why we support the current Bill as a whole. Third, despite my general agreement with the Bill, I will raise questions for the Minister on specific points of concern. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move on to the first part of my speech on previous legislation targeted at online content. In its press release on 8 May, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) called this Bill, "the next piece in our suite of legislation, including the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) and the recently amended Broadcasting Act to better protect the public in Singapore from various harms in the online space." The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) groups these four Acts together – the Broadcasting Act, POFMA, FICA and now, if I may coin the obvious acronym, OCHA. However, we need to remind ourselves in this House and we need to remind Singaporeans generally that these statutes are very different from one another.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just to the Senior Minister of State on this point again, is it possible to increase the number of walk-in slots at the polyclinics in view of the feedback that many Members of this House are receiving from seniors who have difficulties in accessing the online system and making a booking? Can the Senior Minister of State also give us an indication of the percentage of these slots which are walk-in slots? The other supplementary question pertains to the number of feedback MOH has received on complaints of not being able to book a slot through the online system. Does the Senior Minister of State have some numbers for us, so we can understand the extent of the problem?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate you calling me again. Prime Minister, thank you for that reply. Coming back to the gravamen of what a lot of the discussion was over the last at least three and a half hours – with regard to asking a civil servant for information – Senior Minister Teo has made his point that there was quite frankly nothing untoward about it because the nature of the information was as such. This, of course, upon reading the Miscellaneous Paper, is not apparent to the public. It is quite incongruous in the eyes of many for a Minister to be asking a civil servant details which pertain to information for his personal use. I think this is the crux of the issue. And when people intersect it with the Ministerial Code of Conduct and your Letter of Prudence, does the Prime Minister not agree that actually this is an issue that has been flagged out and that there is a better way to address a problem of a similar nature when it crops up?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just a question for the Prime Minister with regard to the scope of the CPIB investigation. Was CPIB tasked to look into the Code of Conduct for the Ministers and whether the Ministers acted in accordance to the code, because the earlier explanation of the Prime Minister suggested that CPIB looked into the whole range of issues beyond legal issues. My understanding from the Miscellaneous Paper was that CPIB was looking to see whether a criminal or corruption offence could be disclosed.”
“Just to confirm, it would be correct, for the record, to say the phones were not seized?”
“Can I just confirm with both Ministers, in the course of the investigations, were your mobile devices seized by CPIB and returned at the end of investigations?”
“So, I think we have not interrogated that and how the system can be improved if a situation like this comes up again. In my view, it is much more prudent, in view of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which is onerous, to keep your official matters and your personal matters separate. There is no need to ask a senior civil servant this information when you know you can get an agent to secure the same information. I am not sure whether the Senior Minister can agree with that. The second point I would like to raise is that Minister Shanmugam spoke of an innuendo that when we ask questions about rental and the land area being increased, that, somehow, this is a personal attack against him. Let us be clear. Nobody is playing the man here. We are looking at the issue. My point when I raised my first set of questions was: there is a question of political optics. When we want to rent, let us say, a landed property, an intermediate terrace house would cost less than a corner terrace or semi-detached house. Why? Because the land has utility. If you are a pet lover, you can clearly see that connection. If you have a big family like Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, that additional land has utility. Hence, in the minds of people, the view is, surely, there ought to be some value attached to that, notwithstanding the clarification Second Minister for Law made about how the Valuers in SLA look at it. I think that is the public perception that has raised some of these questions that have come to bear. I just have a final point which was triggered by what Member Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked. He asked about the process of the CPIB investigation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. A number of Members have come forward and asked questions since the first questions I asked. I would like to put into context this Miscellaneous Paper before the House. The fact of the matter here is that I do not believe anybody is making an allegation that the Minister is corrupt, somebody is corrupt in the system. Singaporeans are not making that point. That is quite clear to me. The issue I think we are having to deal with here is the Ministerial Code of Conduct and a specific course of action that was taken by the Minister when he instructed his Deputy Secretary to get some information. I will just share the problem with that, just over the course of the last two hours. Senior Minister Teo says it is not a secret list. Anybody can ask for the list. Minister Shanmugam is a little bit more qualified. He says, "Credible people will get that information." So, within that, we can see some differentiation of why to seek that information could be conceived, by some people, at least, including myself, as actually seeking information, which probably, out of a matter of prudence, would be better sought by an agent appointed by the Minister – which was the question Senior Minister did not answer in my first round of questions. Would it have been better, in his perspective as the Minister reviewing this episode, for Minister Shanmugam to appoint an agent and he would still have been able to make the necessary declarations, vis-à-vis conflict with a senior civil servant and so forth? It would appear from SLA policy that the fact that the Valuer did not know who was the person that was ultimately going to rent the property, suggests that this would not have been so much of a problem.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I think Minister Shanmugam is not in the Chamber. My question is also directed at him. Perhaps, we can move on and I can come back when Mr Shanmugam is in the Chamber.”
“To this end, can I ask the Second Minister for Law also to confirm, of the 600 black and white colonial bungalows in Singapore, how many have the total land area larger than 26 Ridout Road today? And how many lessees have SLA negotiated with to enlarge their compounds as much as was enlarged for 26 Ridout Road? These are my questions for now, Deputy Speaker.”
“My second bucket of questions pertains to Reserves and land management, and I direct this at the Second Minister for Law. Senior Minister Teo's report is silent on why Minister Shanmugam did not have the confidence of the SLA, a Statutory Board that comes under his Ministry's purview and the Second Minister's purview, in maintaining the adjacent land next to 26 Ridout Road in spite of SLA being prepared to pay up to $25,000 a year for its upkeep. Can the Senior Minister explain if he probed into the substance of Minister Shanmugam's lack of confidence in a Public Service body under his charge? Sir, we have been told in this House, no less, that land is a very scarce commodity in Singapore and it must be priced according to its market value. With SLA choosing to focus almost singularly on gross floor area (GFA) and not total land area in its guide rent of black and white bungalows, including those in the most expensive and prime housing estates comprising GCB, does this not represent a policy loophole that effectively is a special dispensation at the taxpayers' expense, for individuals who can afford to rent black and white bungalows? The PAP routinely shuts down any proposal from the Opposition or the public that draws down or is perceived to draw down revenue from state land as "a raid on the Reserves". SLA increased the size of 26 Ridout Road with prime land by almost three times with no real impact on the cost of renting the property except for the usual maintenance. Does this episode not highlight a need to close this policy loophole and put a value on vacant land which the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), anyway, would tax a Singaporean for?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, the issues that have been covered by the four Ministers, I think for many Singaporeans, cover multiple matters of concern ranging from propriety to policy to political optics. While CPIB did not disclose corruption or criminal wrongdoing, the two themes I will cover in my questions cover good governance and land management and Reserves. My first question pursues the second question raised by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and, that is, with regard to good governance and Minister Shanmugam's decision to ask his Deputy Secretary, a very senior civil servant, for a list of properties for his personal occupation. The fact is significant because, unlike Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's property, which was marketed through the SPIO portal amongst others, the information given to Minister Shanmugam for his personal use by the Deputy Secretary would appear to have been privileged. At minimum, the man on the street would not have equal access to this information and would have had to secure it at some cost. So, I would invite the Senior Minister to consider whether it would have been more appropriate for the Minister in question to have engaged an agent to inquire about properties that were available for rental. How does the Senior Minister's report reconcile this with the Ministerial Code of Conduct and the Prime Minister's Rules of Prudence for the People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament, which requires that all Ministers should scrupulously keep their official and private affairs separate? Should Singaporeans conclude that such actions by Ministers as instructing civil servants on personal matters and using official information for personal use is appropriate, above board and has been going on for a long time in the Public Service?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just a quick question for the Senior Minister of State on the legislation and the earlier point he made – the in excess of 300 complaints with regard to discrimination. Of those complaints, can I confirm with the Senior Minister of State how many of them involve companies with a headcount of less than 25? That would give us a sense of whether the five-year timeline is too long and whether it can be shortened or whether more work needs to be done to try and bring smaller firms up to speed.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just following up on the matter of appeals with regard to this subject. I have a resident who is in a similar predicament and I can imagine there are others. Does the Senior Minister of State have any indications on how many appeals have been forwarded to MOH for consideration, for cases where the drugs are not on the CDL anymore?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just a quick point in response to the remark made by Minister of State Mr Alvin Tan vis-a-vis Mariam Jaafar's question for today's Order Paper. It is directed at the Prime Minister and specifically to MAS on curbs on car loans. As we know and as the Minister has alluded to, we also have car loans which take the form of almost like money lending or quasi-money lending arrangements. You have hire purchase, which comes under MTI. So, just to confirm whether this would be a whole-of-Government exercise to look at car loans or vehicle loans, including even motorcycle loans, and whether there is any prospect of a review to ensure that the loopholes, with regard to the financing of vehicles, can be further looked at and even tightened, if need be.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two questions for the Minister for Transport and they are quite narrow, relating to the volatility or trying to manage the volatility in COE prices. So, the first question is: with regard to car loan restrictions, which are now at seven years and at 70% of the selling price, is the Ministry intending to look at the loopholes vis-a-vis these car loan curbs, because it is not uncommon to hear of dealerships offering 100% loans and things of that nature. That is the first question. The second question pertains to the continuing relevance of the Cat E COE, the open category. Unlike Cat A and Cat B, which we know are tied to car registration numbers, the Cat E COE can be traded for up to three months, if I recall correctly. So, there is a potential speculative vector in Cat E COEs. I would like to know what is MOT's view on the continued relevance of Cat E COEs and whether removing that category altogether can help towards a smoother COE system.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just a follow-up to the Minister's reply with regard to the researcher who said, as I understood Minister's reply, that it was a media publication that actually misquoted him and it sounds like a very serious case of being misquoted. Can I confirm whether MHA then reached out to the publication to enquire why the piece was eventually published as it was, in view of the sensitivity of this subject?”
“And in that context, I think it is a good time to include what MP Murali Pillai spoke about the psyche of the nation and how people's views change through generations and how important this is becoming as a consideration for some Singaporeans. But I do not want to lean too much into one survey alone. I am sure the Ministry may have a more global perspective of opinion. I am just suggesting that this is something which I felt was important for the Government to consider.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Minister for his speech and for referring to the point I made about an English requirement. Sir, I have two clarifications. The first is this. I did not say that an English requirement would be a single point of consideration for PRs and new citizenship applications. I think that the Minister, in his characterisation, framed it as a sort of litmus test. In fact, I made it clear in my speech today that it was a nudge to align our immigration policy and our bilingual policy. And for individuals like foreign spouses who would have some difficulty, especially if English is not a common language that they use; or with respect to the Minister's family member who is now very old, for which a test may have been problematic a long time ago – the test is not in that context a veto factor. The existing criteria would apply and it would be a consideration when an immigration decision is considered – that this person already has a common lingua franca that many Singaporeans actually share. So, I think the point was a little more nuanced than what the Minister enunciated. I think the second point is international students who are today foreigners; if they want to enter our primary school system, they already have to take a Cambridge English qualification test. So, it is not as if this is really a left-field suggestion or something which is too off the mark. And to that end, I refer to the survey in my speech. I think the Minister would have seen it. The Minister referred to various criteria that we broadly know, with respect to immigration. But that survey found that the ability to communicate in English ranks number one. In fact, the number one position was shared with economic contributions to Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just for the record, I need to state this for the record because the WP never made a request for information on people born in Singapore. So, I just want to be very careful about that, because that gets us into very dangerous territory.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me just deal with the last point made by the hon Deputy Prime Minister. I do not think there is any difficulty for me or my colleagues to agree to that. And I think that coming back to the Prime Minister's speech, which I think a lot more Singaporeans should listen to, we know the future is not exactly smooth. There are a lot of unpredictable factors that we have to contend with and, in the course of debate in this House, we will be going back and forth at each other's proposals and ideas. But insofar as populism and opportunism are concerned, I am quite certain that the Deputy Prime Minister means that it ought to work both ways. It cannot be a case of pointing fingers at the Opposition and accusing them of that when certain actions of ruling party politicians on the ground are no better. But having said that, I accept the Deputy Prime Minister's concerns of our democracy and, certainly, the WP, and I hope the Opposition in general, will be mindful going forward and work towards the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, I actually did not intend to bring up this point in the course of my speech today. But because Minister Ong mentioned yesterday in the context of presenting alternative budgets, alternative agendas, he said, "just file a question, you'll get a written answer". I think that caused me to pause. Because the answer that was given in 2016 – and again, I stand corrected if my memory fails me – was not that the reason we are not releasing the ICT data was because there could be commercial sensitivities and so forth. In fact, there was no reason given at all, if I am not wrong. It was "We don't release this figure, period". So, again, I think the question really comes back down to thinking carefully about whether that information truly is going to be problematic and what is in our interests, given Singapore's situation, given how some of these agreements can be problematic. And I have to add, again, I am going back six years. So, I remember the question of CECA did not just drop from the sky in 2015, 2016, 2017, around that period. Factually, the Government website also had to come out and clarify some of these issues. So, in that context, I am not blaming MOM or pointing the finger at MOM, but making a larger meta point about how important it can be for information to be released and to take a different attitude towards it.”
“Some information, it is better for it to come out early and then we can move on, especially as you said when it concerns issues like racism or xenophobia, it is much better to credit early." Sir, I hope that response addresses the point put to me by the Minister for Manpower. I am suggesting that in certain issues of great significance, the Government is better off providing more information rather than less.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I go into the nub of the matter as raised by the hon Minister for Manpower, in terms of the xenophobic elements which the Minister raised, we are at ad idem. We do not want our compact to be disrupted and overturned because of these reasons. So, to that extent, we are on the same page. But let me just share with the Minister that when I referred to the ICTs, Minister would recall in the debate that Minister refers to, that the Parliamentary Questions were asked well before the answers that he gave in Parliament in July. Mr Leon Perera had – if my memory serves me correctly and I stand corrected, Mr Speaker, I am going based on memory alone – asked the question on the number of ICTs in 2016. And the answer in Parliament from the Minister for Manpower was, "we don't reveal these numbers." And the point we were making – and the point I made in my speech again today – was if those numbers were released, because the numbers were low – they could have punctured all that xenophobia quite early. And the point I am making was I could not understand why it was difficult to provide the information in 2016, but then when things are descending into an abyss, the numbers start coming out. I made this point earlier. I made this point in the course of that debate and this was then Minister Ong Ye Kung's reply. I made the same point and there is no real difference in the point that I am making now. And this is what he said in my response to releasing information earlier: "I take to heart what the Leader of the Opposition has said that, with information, we can quell such falsehoods much earlier. We work in a bureaucracy. Some data is classified secret, confidential and so on. So, we are not at liberty to always disclose them. But what you say is true.”
“But even the late President Ong Teng Cheong, who was very close to the top of PAP politics as the then-Deputy Prime Minister and seemingly right at the top of our political hierarchy as the then-President, could not get the information he wanted. How much less realistic then for those lower down the establishment's pecking order to achieve substantive goals for change? The alternative in responding to PAP's dominance is to appeal directly to the people – by contesting in elections and leaving it to the voters and having faith in their judgement. This is the path that the WP, its MPs, members and volunteers have chosen. So, the direction the WP must take while in Parliament is to worthy of the votes that have put us in Parliament. Just as the Government is essentially continuing its last term and also the previous session of Parliament, so are we. We will continue to raise alternative proposals within the limits of our resources and the information we have or is made available. We will be glad to see the PAP implement policies we have suggested, whether they say that those ideas were already in their pipeline or whether they merely adopt them without attribution. But most critically, no matter the challenge or obstacle, the Opposition must be focused and continue to endeavour, work for and defend the interests of Singaporeans and Singapore, as equal and fellow Singaporeans, together in the same boat, rowing in the same direction, be it in or out of this House. [Applause.]”
“The rigours of debates and contestation of ideas on issues that are important to Singaporeans can help all of us formulate new ways forward for Singapore." He could not have put it better. At some point, in the name of inclusivity and a united Singapore in the face of grave external challenges, I hope the PAP can rise above political partisanship and acknowledge the political contribution of the WP towards the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, just as the President has set out the direction the Government is taking, let me set out the approach of the WP for this second session of Parliament of the Government's term. The WP's approach involves an acceptance that the political reality in Singapore is the overwhelming dominance of the PAP today. Part of that PAP's supremacy comes from the performance of the PAP in delivering what citizens want, especially in the early decades of Singapore's self-rule, then Independence. Part of that dominance has also come from hardball political tactics that also hosted policies with collateral purposes that suppressed the growth of an Opposition, such as politicising ostensibly community-focused organisations such as the People's Association (PA), which does the bidding of even unelected advisors. What is the appropriate response to such dominance? Some believe, perhaps naively, that it is best to work within the system, to change things from within the establishment. Is that a realistic possibility? Perhaps it is. If you make it to one of a handful of top positions.”