Rahayu Mahzam
Singapore
“We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers.”
“So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and if all else fails, there is MediFund.”
“Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes.”
“It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is that it is a knot that we need to untangle; and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.”
“I appreciate the Member's feedback. As I said earlier, this is something that we will continue to consider. But we do also have to appreciate that the information that we get is live, in terms of waiting times and all that.”
“But I do take the point and we are actually reviewing to see what is a meaningful way to put out this information so that the public can understand, so that we can all track properly whether the good health outcomes are a result of the efforts that we are making. I will take the feedback back and we will continue to review this.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,289 lines we hold for Rahayu Mahzam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 26.
“However, I hope that in the implementation of this legislation, efforts will be made to encourage the application of CRI in most cases. Minister Shanmugam said at the recent dialogue organised by One People.Sg (OPSG) and Channel NewsAsia that there is no silver bullet to solving racism, but Singapore has had a fair amount of success over the years. The issues of race and religion are intertwined in this country and we need to continue to take efforts to address them. As a management committee member of OPSG, I am happy to note that there have been many platforms put forth by OPSG to allow for discussions and meaningful engagements amongst people from different races and religions. The dialogue was one such platform. There are also various focus group discussions, learning journeys and camps for youths, to name a few, that are targeted towards promoting understanding and embracing the diversity of race and religion in our community. These efforts augment the legal framework that we put in place to preserve and protect our social fabric. I have faith that with the appropriate combination of legal measures as well as community engagements, and a conscious effort to consistently and vigorously protect the interests of our multiracial and multi-religious community, we would be able to maintain our harmony. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Further, I appreciate that believers of a certain faith would have views on non-believers and any articulation of that may be perceived as offensive. However, the fact that there had been an incitement of enmity, hatred or ill-will, even if it is in a private setting, could be a cause for concern. A more profound hatred could develop over time, through repeated private discussions and with different groups of people. I am, therefore, wondering if we could take a more calibrated approach in practice, when such a situation of a private expression of hate or ill-will that is made known to the authorities occurs. In appropriate circumstances, especially when the hate or ill-will arises out ignorance and could worsen if left unchecked, could recommendations be made for the individual to be referred to a community engagement, akin to the CRI? This leads me to the second provision I would like to comment on. I would like to laud the inclusion of section 16H of the Bill relating to CRI. I feel that this approach is potentially a powerful mechanism to really challenge beliefs and behaviours. In Malay, there is a saying, “Tak kenal, maka tak cinta” which means, “You do not know, so you do not love.” Often, resentment or hatred arises from ignorance and lack of understanding of another’s beliefs and practices. The CRI presents that opportunity to edify, clarify and rebuild relations and I am happy that it is being introduced. I note though that the process is not mandatory. The offer must first be made by the Minister, and the person may choose to enter into this scheme. I acknowledge that one must be given the choice, as compelling anyone into this process would be counterproductive.”
“MRHA needs to be strengthened so that we can continue to ensure the country's well-being and interests are protected. Therefore, I fully support this Bill. (In English): Today, we are debating the amendment of an Act that has not been invoked but holds great significance as a symbol of the nation’s commitment to the preservation of harmony in Singapore. I am heartened that continued and consistent efforts are being made by the Government to ensure that we guard against acts that could tear at our social fabric. The advent and proliferation of technology have made the world a different place. With social media, a lot of information, both positive and negative, can go viral very quickly. There is a need for appropriate legislation in place to ensure that there is ability to quickly respond to acts that could incite hate and ill-will amongst members in the community and respond to foreign interference that could create distrust and divisions in our people without us even being aware. This amendment is, therefore, timely and welcomed. I would just like to comment on several provisions in this Bill. Firstly, I refer to section 17F of the Bill, in particular, to the defence to the offence at sections 7 and 8. The defences appear to make a distinction between acts that are carried out privately and in the public domain. I would like to gain a better understanding of the rationale behind the defences as well as how the distinction between the private and public domain will be made. I appreciate that it may be impractical to expect the authorities to police private communications. Any enforcement of the law for action done within certain confines, may also be seen to infringe on certain human liberties of privacy.”
“Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We often speak about our country's uniqueness as a multiracial and multi-religious society where all races live in harmony. History has shown us that nothing we have achieved today happened by chance and we are aware that the necessary efforts should continue in order to preserve this harmony. This includes maintaining the good relations among the different races through community activities, providing a safe space for dialogue and discussions of sensitive issues, providing infrastructures, such as schools and housing, where we can live and gain common experiences, and also having laws that can specifically hinder acts that can divide our society. Some of the existing pieces of legislation include the MRHA. This Act was introduced in 1990 and enacted in 1992. It was established based on several principles. First, to maintain religious harmony by ensuring that the different religions practise moderation and tolerance, and do not do anything that can create any discomfort with one another. Second, to ensure that religion does not influence national politics. This Act has actually never been used or amended. However, with changing times and rapid digital breakthroughs, we need to review the effectiveness of this Act in order to protect the nation's well-being. For instance, fake news can become viral at an amazing speed. Hate commentaries towards any particular religion can also spread very quickly. With technology, influences beyond our borders can easily reach out and damage the trust within society without us realising it. The Government must have the ability to manage this quickly.”
“I note that the Minister has earlier explained the need to ensure safety of the social workers as well as other residents who are in the group home. However, I would like to understand these specific considerations that led to the decision to have this provision and how we could reconcile the spirit of rehabilitation. In particular, I would also like to know what standard operating procedures are in place to guide the use of this power and what processes and checks are in place to prevent the abuse of this provision. I feel that it is important for the Ministry to constantly assess the use of this provision and its impact on the children and young people. Mr Speaker, CYPA provides an important framework to ensure the protection of our children and young persons from harm and the provision of support and rehabilitation when they go astray. There is a need to review and strengthen the Act so that we can best address the needs of the sector and the community. Notwithstanding the comments I made earlier, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“I have already received some anecdotal feedback about the instances of bullying in some of the residential homes. Typically, it happens when one resident or a group of them feel that they have more control and power over another. Will this problem be aggravated when there is a wider age group of residents, with older youths? Further, will it be more difficult to coordinate targeted programmes or support for rehabilitation when you have a wider age group in the residential homes? In addition, what is the Ministry's assessment of the capability of the sector to carry out the necessary functions to manage a higher number of children and young people? The increase of the age limit will not only increase the numbers but, as alluded to above, the different group of young people will have a new profile with differing needs and risks. What is the plan to strengthen the ability of the Ministry and the social service agencies to operationalise the amendments? Lastly, I would like to seek a clarification on the proposed amendment to include the new section 68A, which enables the person-in-charge of any home for children and young persons that is operated by or under the management or control of the Government to use or authorise any person who is assisting the person-in-charge to use mechanical restraint on a person detained in the home. I am a little bothered by the possible scenarios and the impact such actions would have on the children or young persons restrained. Such circumstances could add to the trauma faced by the children, and such actions seem an antithesis to the spirit of rehabilitation. I note and appreciate that this power is only sanctioned in very specific circumstances and, in practice, may be necessary.”
“(In English) Mr Speaker, in English. Childhood and youth are points in life when one is supposed to be the most carefree and protected. However, this experience may not be true for some children or young people. We need to help those undergoing challenging periods as much as we can. The underlying principle of any regulation in this respect must be that the welfare and best interests of the children and young person will be the paramount consideration. I appreciate that the work done by all the officers and caregivers in this sector is not easy. I, therefore, acknowledge the need to review and make amendments to this Act over time. I support the amendments but have a few matters which I wish to seek clarification on. Firstly, I would like to welcome the move to extend the protection under the Act to all children and youths below the age of 18, up from the age of 16 today. Those who are under 18 are still young, generally less mature cognitively and are still, therefore, vulnerable to abuse and neglect. They should also be given the necessary attention and appropriate rehabilitative support when they offend. The amendments to extend the Act to include children who are abused or neglected and young offenders aged 16 to below 18 are, therefore, a good move. However, I would like to echo the concerns of some stakeholders about the implications of having to oversee and rehabilitate a wide age range of children and young people. In particular, when we deal with young offenders, a wider age range of young people may be placed within the same residential facility. The needs and risks of a small child and a physically larger youth would differ and present different challenges.”
“" Indeed, it has been suggested that the strongest predictors of whether a child will eventually turn to crime are likely to be in such things as poor parental supervision, parental conflict, disrupted families and, most notably, having parents with a criminal or anti-social background. It is, therefore, a matter of some importance that we keep an eye on the state of our families. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many studies have shown that whenever children undergo traumatic experiences or challenges when they are younger, it will have a profound impact on their lives. One such study conducted in 2017 stated that childhood trauma, possibly due to the child being abandoned or exposed to violence, will create youths and adults who are unable to assess risks and make healthy and correct decisions in life. It is clear that traumatic experiences will affect the trajectory or direction in the life of a child or a youth. Therefore, this CYPA Bill is an important piece of legislation that protects children and young persons from danger and facilitates rehabilitation, if required, as soon as possible. As a community, we must also continue to support and guide parents, especially those who are facing challenges because they may have had traumatic or bad experiences themselves when they were young. Perhaps the support and assistance for parents who face issues with their children should be enhanced so that they can understand the process that they are undergoing and be equipped with the skills to educate their children. As much as possible, we would like the family to stay intact and live harmoniously, but the most important thing to do is to protect children from precarious or hazardous situations.”
“Mr Speaker, the CYPA, which was last amended in 2011, provides for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children under 16. It also supports children who have committed offences, those who have been abused or neglected by their parents or caregivers, and those whose parents are seeking the Court's guidance because of their children's behaviour. The importance of this Act cannot be understated. Children who go through a traumatic experience or have challenges when they are young are more likely to have issues when they are older. The research done by Rasmus Birn, Barbara Roeburn and Seth Pollak in 2017 explained that individuals who have experienced chronic and high levels of stress during their childhoods are at increased risk for a wide range of behavioural problems, yet the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this association are poorly understood. They measured the life circumstances of a community sample of school-age children and then followed these children for a decade and found that those who had experienced extreme stress as children were hampered in their ability to make good decisions as adults. Simply put, childhood trauma, due to circumstances like neglect or exposure to violence, created young adults fundamentally unable to correctly consider risk and make healthy life decisions. In fact, no threat of punishment was likely to be effective in changing this deficit. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, in his keynote address at the Conference on At-Risk Youths in 2015, aptly said: "In general, it can be said that the more a child is exposed to adverse circumstances at an early age, the more disadvantaged will that child be.”
“However, some drivers wish to get more clarity on how much of the fare actually goes to the drivers and how much just goes to the companies or operators. These are some examples. But the point is that drivers are asking for some fairness as authorities set rules to regulate conduct with passengers and the business operations. Other points relating to regulations include whether we want to regulate cancellation policies as well. I am informed that some operators may not charge cancellation charges. Further, even though passengers are charged a certain penalty fee for cancelling on the drivers, what are the rules for drivers cancelling on passengers? Are we looking at specific rules to regulate these issues? On passenger safety, I would like to ask if there is a need to regulate and enforce a certain standard for reporting of emergency situations during rides. Currently, ride-hailing apps have emergency buttons. However, are there standard operating procedures (SOPs) that the companies adhere to upon receiving the report and whether there is also a need to regulate such SOPs? In conclusion, I believe we can all agree that, over the years, there have been some improvements in the P2P passenger transport service sector, especially with the ride-hailing apps. The improvements have, indeed, raised convenience and service levels of such transport services in Singapore. We should encourage continued innovation on this front. I appreciate that we do need to strike the balance between regulation and allowing for some space for the sector to grow. I believe it is important to continue to share and engage drivers and operators to improve this sector. Notwithstanding the inputs I gave above, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“In this regard, there are some specific anecdotes that I would like to share. I am told that currently, PHC drivers enter additional fares, such as ERP, manually into the eventual charge to the passenger. Someone shared that some drivers include extra additional fares to the actual fare without the passenger knowing. This is especially the case when the passenger makes the driver wait quite long and the driver arbitrarily charges the passenger for "waiting time". This does not seem right but some drivers feel that the "waiting penalty" is fair because they say that, very often, passengers will book way in advance and have the drivers wait for them at the passengers' convenience. Sometimes, the wait can be up to 15 minutes. Besides lowering their potential income, they may also incur fines if they are waiting in a no-parking area in the Central Business District. There was also a feedback on the fare start and stop for PHC drivers or the ride-hail services. For taxis, the fare starts when drivers hit the start button on the meter and stops when drivers stop the meter. However, the point at which the fare starts is not clear for PHC drivers. An example given by a PHC driver is that a passenger made the driver drive all the way up seven storeys in an industrial park building to reach the exact unit. Because of the large size of the building, it may take close to 10 minutes to reach the top of the building. This is even as the destination was supposed to be arrival foyer of the building itself. Drivers also said that surge-pricing is a good mechanism as it does encourage drivers to come out and drive when the supply of drivers on the road is low. This really does improve service levels. Drivers are notified of higher prices and are "activated" and motivated to drive.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to declare at the outset that I sit on the PTC. However, my views expressed today are my own, based on interaction with some residents and the feedback I received. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair] This Bill is intended to regulate the provision of P2P passenger transport services in Singapore. The P2P passenger transport services, including the street-hail and ride-hail services, form an important part of the transport services in Singapore. I am not sure about other families, but I recall that when I was younger, taking a taxi was a luxury and you would only do so when you really needed to get somewhere fast or had a lot of things to carry. PHCs were not always accessible to the masses. Now, it is more commonplace to see people using P2P transport services, especially with the entry and proliferation of the PHCs in the sector. It, therefore, becomes imperative to have proper rules regulating the sector. I would like to take this opportunity to convey some of the views that I have received from some drivers, especially from PHCs. There is some anxiety from among the drivers about what this new Bill and further regulations would bring. I believe in this respect, there may be concerns with regard to what sections 30 and 31 of this draft Bill would mean to the drivers. Some of my residents are PHC drivers and have shared some challenges they face dealing with competition and with customers. In a conversation with one resident, he shared his concerns about the impact of further rules, especially on penalties that may affect the income he eventually brings home. I have also received feedback calling for parity and fairness to the drivers, in making rules regulating this sector.”
“In addition, is there also a framework for the sharing of data and information with other Government agencies? There are also opportunities to collaborate with different agencies within the broader science and technology ecosystem to build a stronger and more meaningful science and technology sector for Singapore. There may also be existing partnerships which could be enhanced. How will this new agency work within the broader ecosystem, including with other Government agencies? On another note, as we use science and technology to improve surveillance and fight terrorism, there may be concerns of how privacy and personal data may be impacted. It may also be useful to assure the public that any images, videos or data collected in the course of the use of various security innovations will be used in a proper manner and are well protected by a sound data security framework. Notwithstanding my comments above, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“The range of issues dealt with by the Home Team officers is diverse, and the skillsets of officers must also rise in tandem with the complexity of the threats. This is where a dedicated science and technology agency for the Home Team can raise capabilities for the security sector. Mr Speaker, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The proposal to set up a dedicated agency for the Home Team that can look into matters related science and technology is a good move. With our country facing a multitude of global challenges arising from terrorism, cyberattacks and transnational crimes, this agency will help to build the Home Team's capabilities to overcome increasingly complex issues. The use of science and technology will also help the Home Team manage its manpower and meet new challenges. When this proposal was first announced, many made reference to DSTA which was established some time ago. Through DSTA, the defence sector managed to come up with many innovative solutions for the three branches of the Singapore Armed Forces. The Home Team has also employed many new technologies. The establishment of this dedicated agency will continue to strengthen such efforts and raise the capabilities of the security sector in Singapore. (In English): I am, therefore, supportive of the setting up of the agency and this Bill. I have a few quick comments and queries though. The work of this agency will generate meaningful data and insights that may be useful to all departments within the Home Team and even other Government agencies. The power of data and actionable insights being shared should not be underestimated. I would like to know if there is a framework on how the data and insights garnered will be shared across the Home Team agencies.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to establish HTX. The plan to set up the Agency was announced at MHA's COS debate earlier this year. Many welcomed the move to boost capabilities across the various security agencies, and said it was a timely move, given the continued global threats posed by terrorism as well as rising threats of cyberattacks and transnational crime. Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo also highlighted during the debate that the greater use of science and technology will enable the Home Team to be effective, in the face of manpower constraints and future challenges. This resonated with many people. Some made reference to the setting up of DSTA, a Statutory Board under MINDEF set up in 2000. Dr Antonio L Rappa, an associate professor and head of Management and Security Studies at the Singapore University of Social Sciences' School of Business in an article in The Straits Times in February 2019 observed that the military sector has produced innovative variants for military security across the three branches of the Singapore Armed Forces. He said the Home Team, too, is quick to adopt new technologies. One example is the new body-cameras used by the Singapore Police Force (SPF). Also, officers involved in investigating crime can now access the most updated information anywhere in the region. SPF is also reportedly considering new infrared technology which has been used in a limited fashion for the Police Coast Guard units. Second Minister Josephine Teo has also earlier given many exciting examples in her speech. Dr Rappa also said that while Home Team officers do share some similarities with defence force officers, it is also clear that their different security functions and specialist nature of work require a different range of advanced technologies.”
“According to the rule, when traffic merges, drivers merging from the left and right should alternately give way to one another so that traffic flows smoothly. I am sure a lot of things are taught before one gets a licence. However, the lived experience on the roads may be different. So, I hope that all parties and agencies will continue in the effort to create awareness and build better habits and culture on the roads in Singapore. Notwithstanding the above, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“I would just like to seek clarification on whether the DCP has the discretion to extend the notice period before revocation. My second point also relates to those who drive for a living. I suspect that because of the length of time they spend on the roads, because they may be subjected to the vagaries of passenger demands and road conditions or because they may have become over-confident as they are quite familiar with driving, they may statistically be more likely to commit more traffic offences. I wonder if we have done any analysis on the circumstances of the traffic offenders so that there could be a more targeted approach to address the issue. Because I believe that aside from creating deterrence and penalties, we really should look into shaping the behaviour of drivers and understanding perhaps some of the challenges drivers face and address them. Perhaps there could also be efforts in rehabilitating bad behaviour very early on. I believe that DIPS was one good way to encourage good behaviour. Could there perhaps be some enhancements to this programme to provide more specific support and motivation to these drivers? My third point is a general point related to the above. As noted earlier, alongside the enhancements of penalties, I believe there is a necessity to strengthen awareness and encourage safe driving. I am happy to hear that the Singapore Road Safety Council will be ramping up its efforts to raise awareness on safe and gracious behaviour on the roads. I think perhaps we could look at generating strong awareness of driving etiquette in specific situations. For example, I am not sure if many Singaporean drivers follow the "zipper rule".”
“The number of red-light running violations spiked by 15.7% to 53,910 cases. This is 7,311 cases more than 2017's 46,599 violations. Accidents caused by red light running increased slightly by 2.6% to 120 accidents, from 117 accidents in 2017. Statistics aside, traffic accidents can have severe consequences. In the more serious accidents, lives are lost and one life lost is one too many. It is, therefore, important to continue to encourage safe driving and shape the behaviours of road users. Our traffic laws and rules are, indeed, one way to shape behaviours on the road and it may be time to further strengthen the penalties to target the egregious offences. I welcome the enhancements introduced in this Bill. I would like, however, to make some comments on the amendments. Firstly, in respect of the amendment to section 35B of the Bill, I note that before revoking a person’s driving licence, the DCP must give a notice to the driver, and the notice period must be at least four weeks before the revocation date. The proposed amendment also sets out a framework for the submission of any representations or objections. I note from the proposed sections 35B (2) and (3) that the DCP could proceed to revoke the licence on the proposed revocation date if the appeal is rejected. I would like to seek a clarification on whether the DCP is at liberty to give any further notice or time to the driver before the revocation. I ask because there may be some people who depend on driving for their livelihood. They may still remain hopeful after submitting representations and may need further time before the final implementation for the revocation. I note that there needs to be a balance between the need to quickly take errant drivers off the roads and to ensure fairness in the process.”
“The nationwide study which involved 1,000 respondents from various groups, including car drivers, taxi drivers and the elderly, revealed that most car users thought positively of themselves when asked to rate their level of safety and graciousness. However, when it came to rating the behaviour of others, most thought negatively of other drivers. I find this both slightly amusing and worrying. Amusing as it is not unfamiliar. I drive and when I am on the road, there would be instances when I felt that the drivers are so inconsiderate, especially when they do not give way to me. However, I am sure, there may be moments when others would have thought the same of me, too. On a more serious and at a deeper level though, this finding reflects the mentality of Singaporean drivers and I feel that it is important to continue to nudge behaviours and develop a culture of safe and gracious driving. I also note an earlier news report sharing that the penalties for irresponsible driving in Singapore is less severe than in some other jurisdictions. Further, it was mentioned that although the number of traffic accidents has dropped, the feedback on irresponsible driving has gone up. The annual statistics from the Traffic Police showed that while there were fewer traffic accidents last year, the number of drink-driving accidents and motorists who ran red lights went up. The number of drink-driving accidents increased by 17.3% to 176 cases last year, from 150 in 2017. Motorcyclists who were drink-driving and got involved in accidents increased by 51.3% to 59 cases in 2018, from 39 cases in 2017. However, the number of people arrested for drink-driving decreased despite an increase in the number of drink-driving enforcement operations conducted in 2018.”
“Mr Speaker, allow me to begin my speech in Malay. (In Malay) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: I have read the news report on a survey conducted by the Traffic Police recently that involved 1,000 road users. The results of this survey revealed that most car users thought positively of themselves when asked to rate their level of safety and graciousness on the roads. However, they felt that the level of safety and graciousness of other drivers were not that good. This is quite worrying because it reflects the mentality and attitude of drivers in Singapore. If all drivers only think of themselves, this will result in more hazards and accidents on the roads. It is important for us to continue encouraging positive behaviour on the roads. In addition, I have also read a report about the increase in feedback on irresponsible drivers. Although the number of accidents have declined between 2014 and 2018, the number of feedback received by the Traffic Police about irresponsible drivers have more than doubled, from 6,900 to 18,500. Between 2015 and 2018, the number of summonses issued has increased from 152,700 to 181,000. Although the number of accidents may have gone down in general, every accident is one too many. Serious accidents can cause injuries and death and we must do our best to avoid them. One way is by strengthening legislation to stop bad behaviour on the roads. Therefore, I welcome today's Bill. I hope that apart from legislation, we can also double our efforts to enhance awareness and educate the public about the importance of safety and graciousness on the roads. (In English): Mr Speaker, in English. I read with interest the news report on the outcome of the survey conducted by the Traffic Police recently.”
“I have intended to seek clarification on this, but I note that, in his opening speech, the Minister for Law had explained the simplified processes. I believe this should address the peoples' concerns. At the end of the day, it is clear from the various explanations that the Ministry has given through news articles and videos, that the Bill does not affect ordinary Singaporeans. Only those who act deliberately will face criminal consequences. Such persons must not only know that the statement they are sending is wrong; they must also know that such statement will undermine public interest. So, it is not a criminal offence to forward or share messages without checking for accuracy first – although I think you should. I feel that ordinary Singaporeans should be happy to be warned about falsehoods and to receive corrections. This will help to build a community of more discerning Internet users. It may be useful to continue to guide and educate the public about this new legislation. Perhaps the Minister can consider efforts to educate Singaporeans on what type of falsehoods will be covered under the Bill so that they can better identify and avoid spreading these falsehoods. On this note, I would highlight that the SC has recommended a multi-pronged approach to help deal with the issues of deliberate online falsehoods. It is very important to educate the public to help equip them with skills to tell false from fact and to build healthy online habits. Over the longer term, I believe that the new legislation, along with the suite of non-legislative measures put in place by the Government, will have the effect of cultivating an informed, discerning population. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.”
“Therefore, under certain circumstances, the Government has to be given the power to curb the spread of such falsehoods. Many have voiced their concerns about how this legislation can affect people's freedom of speech. Let us take a step back and think about what we want for our society. We want a society that knows how to think and is able to conduct healthy discussions. This can only take place when there is a space that is free from slander and falsehoods because otherwise any debate will not be beneficial. Some also questioned the power granted to the Government in this Bill which is seen as too broad. This is actually untrue. The Government must ensure that the information is false and affects public interest. Any view and opinion that are based on true facts will not be categorised as falsehoods. The Government can issue a direction for a correction alongside the falsehood or, in more extreme situations, for the falsehood to be taken down. However, if a person disagrees with the direction, he can go to Court to obtain a determination. The Government does not have the final say in determining whether the matter is true or false. In my opinion, there is a calibration in this Bill's approach and I think this is a good approach. (In English): I am happy to note that corrections will be the primary response and there is no punishment for the majority of cases if there is no malicious conduct. I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in the form of a recourse to the Court, in the event there is an objection to the allegation of falsehood. On this note though, I appreciate the lay persons’ concerns about the cost and complexities involved in seeking recourse from the High Court.”
“The breakdown of society due to a spread of what may seem like innocuous falsehoods can and will happen if we do not take action to correct and curb them. Thirdly, falsehoods are very, very difficult to combat. Therefore, there is a need to act swiftly and decisively in certain situations. The evidence before the SC pointed to three difficulties: (a) human cognitive tendencies, (b) weakness of truth compared with falsehoods, and (c) the further and faster reach of falsehoods than the truth. Basically, in short, we believe what we want to believe, the truth is not as salacious as falsehood, so it is harder to believe the truth, and falsehoods can go viral much faster that the correction. A significant number of representors, both experts and laypersons, called for measures to swiftly stem the spread of online falsehoods. They were of the view that such measures are vital because of the speed at which online falsehoods can cause irreparable damage. Some of them explained why longer-term or indirect measures, such as fact-checking and public education, were not enough to deal with online falsehoods. The SC agreed. In light of the things that I have learnt, I am, therefore, pleased with the calibrated approach taken in the Bill. The Government needs to be empowered to quickly react to falsehoods if there is an adverse impact to the public. In certain circumstances, there cannot be any delay, and the truth has to be brought to light immediately. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is highly vulnerable to the threat of online falsehoods that can potentially destroy inter-racial and inter-religious relations. The adverse impact of falsehoods which have become widespread is hard to repair.”
“Targeting friction points in Singapore society, and weakening Singapore’s will to defend itself, are a more attractive strategy than conventional military warfare. Further, the tools for disinformation campaigns are readily available in our region. Secondly, there are real risks of "slow drip" falsehoods causing long-term damage to society and are difficult to displace if not dealt with quickly. Several experts gave evidence on this issue, including Dr Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Dr Elmie Nekmat, Asst Prof of Communications and New Media from the National University of Singapore. Falsehoods may play on existing "slow burn" issues, such as simmering communal tensions, to create more serious crises in the long run. In particular, Dr Mathew Mathews from the Institute of Policy Studies warned of “low-level” misinformation about particular ethnic, religious or immigrant groups on various matters, such as their loyalty to Singapore, potential to commit anti-social acts and others. And these could lead to friction within the community. Singapore society has seen such falsehoods. One notorious example is an article by The Real Singapore, which falsely reported that a complaint by a Filipino family resulted in commotion between Hindu participants and the Police during a Thaipusam procession in 2015. Viral, drip-feed falsehoods may play on slow-burn issues. Such lies may not trigger immediate violence, but they can poison debate and irreversibly damage the fabric of our society like race relations and confidence in public institutions. All these can culminate in violence in the long run. They should not be considered "less dangerous", and Singapore cannot afford to be complacent about them.”
“In my view, the Bill has captured the essence of the Committee's recommendations and has done well in calibrating the responses to deliberate online falsehoods. I note that some may not share my view. In the wake of the First Reading of the Bill, I received feedback, heard and read about concerns of some people of the impact the new legislation may have on our ideals of freedom of speech and how some felt that this Bill may have been rushed through without proper consultation. I disagree with these views but appreciate that my perspective was very much shaped by my experience and what I had learnt whilst I was on the SC. It would be impossible to set out my whole experience in this speech, but I would like to touch on several learning points that left a deep impact on me. Firstly, Singapore is highly vulnerable to online falsehoods. Falsehoods have a great potential to deepen fault lines and polarise society. Singapore is one of the most diverse countries in the world. We are small, multiracial, multi-religious, with great digital connectedness. Racial and religious tensions may be inflamed quickly. A Nielsen survey indicated that more Singaporeans access their news over the Internet and social media, compared to hardcopy newspapers. A Business Times report stated that 70% of Singaporeans are active social media users on mobile devices, double the global average of 34%. The same report found that over three-quarters of Singaporeans used social media. In addition, several security experts who presented at the SC pointed out that foreign disinformation can be expected to occur in Singapore. In fact, in private hearings, the Committee received evidence that State-sponsored disinformation operations have been carried out against Singapore.”
“Last year, I had the privilege to sit on the Select Committee (SC) on Deliberate Online Falsehoods together with several other Members of this House, including Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Chia Yong Yong. It was a rigorous process. The Committee was appointed in January 2018 and subsequently called for members of the public to submit their thoughts on the causes and consequences of deliberate online falsehoods and suggest countermeasures against the threat. We received 170 submissions from people from all walks of life, including academics, community leaders, think tanks, students and other individuals. We went through all the submissions and invited 79 of those who made submissions to elaborate on their submission at a public hearing. Over the course of eight days, we heard oral representations from 65 individuals and representatives of organisations. The Committee deliberated on the matter over a period of almost six months and eventually produced a 176-page report, not inclusive of the annexes, with 22 recommendations. One of the key thrusts of the recommendations was to disrupt online falsehoods through new legislation which would empower the Government to take the necessary action. The Committee had observed that falsehoods can appear in a broad spectrum of circumstances, from deliberately fabricated content to satire and parodies. They can also have varying degrees of impact, causing minor confusion to threatening national security and dividing societies. The Committee emphasised that Government intervention should be calibrated in a manner that takes these factors into consideration. I am heartened that the Bill today has taken into account one of the SC's recommendations on the creation of new legislation.”
“Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments above, I support this Bill.”
“I believe many Internet users especially, may want to know if they are committing an offence, given the prevalence of such acts online now. To be made an offence, there must be intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the target person. Would an individual who has published the details about the target person, but without making any further statement urging action to be taken against him or her, be able to argue in defence that there was no intention to cause harm, but just to share information? What if the individual was not the one who created the publication in the first place and was just forwarding the information? I am also curious as to how enforcement will take place. What if numerous people have shared and forwarded the information with malicious intent? Will the Police and prosecutor be pursuing every individual involved? Further, could there be possible challenges of preservation of evidence, for example, if comments or information were shared on Instagram through Insta-stories? I would be grateful for the clarification on the matters above. Mr Speaker, new norms have developed with the pervasive use of the Internet and interactions in the online space. There is, therefore, a need to regulate behaviour online. Harassment, online or offline, is not acceptable behaviour. It impinges on the personal rights of an individual and can have severe repercussions on the victims’ physical as well as mental well-being. I appreciate that this needs to be balanced with the need to ensure that the process is not abused and no unduly harsh penalties are imposed. I believe that enactment of laws needs to be coupled with public education, and I hope we will continue with this effort to build a better community online and offline.”
“Information about the person's name, home address, place of study or work is then displayed to the public on the Internet with the intent to shame the person and invite others to collectively condemn that individual's actions and take revenge. With the amendment to the law, this will be an offence and those found guilty can be fined or imprisoned. There may be those who ask, what is wrong with doxxing? Perhaps they feel that there is nothing wrong with upholding the truth and getting back at the person who did something wrong. I think we need to be clear about the negative impact of doxxing. What is our intention if we make someone's personal information public? What do we hope will happen and what is the impact on the individual and his or her family? Is this the kind of healthy behaviour we want to see on the Internet and in real life? Just imagine, if we use a real-world example, the act of doxxing is akin to printing the individual's photos and personal information and then placing it all in everyone's mailbox. It is the same as using paint to display information about an individual on the walls of public areas and telling everyone about what he or she did. I believe that doxxing is not a good thing and goes against the norms of living as a society. Therefore, I fully support the recommendations in this Bill with respect to doxxing. (In English): For the reasons set out in my Malay speech, I am supportive of the proposed amendments in relation to making doxxing an offence. I feel that if a certain conduct is unacceptable offline, it should not be permissible online. I would, however, like to seek clarification on the application of the new laws.”
“The judge-led approach also allows the Courts greater control over proceedings. I would, therefore, like to know if there are plans for the PHCs to employ the judge-led approach. At this juncture, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue my speech in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The advent of technology has transformed the way we live. Social media has become an important channel for us to communicate and interact with one another. So much interaction takes place in social media to the point that it has led to the creation of an ecosystem and a different world online, which has become the place where we study, chat, trade, find love and to do many other things, and now, certain norms have also come into existence in the cyber world. It is important for us to ensure that we continue to uphold societal values by having certain rules online. Any negative actions that are unacceptable to us in the real world should similarly be unacceptable on the Internet. In my view, certain rules and ethics can exist by educating all online users. However, we know that, sometimes, legislation and monitoring are required to ensure that everyone displays a positive behaviour on the Internet. One issue being raised in today's Bill is doxxing. This term refers to the action of searching and publishing someone's personal information, usually with malicious intent. This is a growing trend on the Internet. This usually happens when an individual did something that the general public finds unacceptable and the person's actions become viral online, usually in the form of a video. Some people who receive such information may feel triggered by what happened and begin to look for information on the supposedly errant individual.”
“Mr Speaker, when POHA was first introduced, it was welcomed as there was a need to provide a range of remedies against harassment, including sexual harassment, cyberbullying and even online stalking. I note that since POHA came into force in November 2014, there have been more than 1,700 prosecutions and over 3,000 Magistrate’s Complaints. These numbers reflect that the Act had been well-utilised over the few years. I am, therefore, happy to hear that there will be enhancements to the Act. In particular, I am happy to hear that there will be an establishment of a specialist Court, the PHCs, to oversee matters under POHA. Going through the Court process can be very daunting for lay persons. It is, therefore, imperative that processes are kept simple and timelines are expedited. It would help if the PHC becomes a one-stop "shop" where victims of harassment can get support with the Court proceedings, and even help with counselling or enforcement procedures, to ensure a meaningful remedy under POHA. I hope this is what is envisioned under this Bill. The harsh reality is that any order made under POHA will be a paper order. Whether it truly affords protection will depend on whether there is support by the whole ecosystem, the Police, the Court staff and social workers. It is, therefore, important to provide holistic support to the victims. In this regard, I would like to ask if any measures are in place to ensure that victims of harassment and abuse are given sufficient assistance when they approach the Courts. I would also like to make reference to the judge-led approach at the Family Justice Courts. Basically, one judge oversees all matters relating to the same parties and it allows for the judge to have a holistic understanding of the parties’ case.”
“In particular, I would like to seek clarification on the difference between the definition of "vulnerable person" in this Bill and "vulnerable adult" in the Vulnerable Adults Act. I believe a clarification may aid in the future applications of both pieces of legislation. Clause 83 of this Bill seeks to introduce new sections 304B and 304C to the Penal Code. The new section 304B relates to causing death of a child below 14 years of age, domestic worker or vulnerable person by sustained abuse. The new section 304C relates to causing or allowing the death of a child below 14 years of age or vulnerable person in the same household. I note the distinction made between the two new sections. I would like to seek a clarification on why the offence of "causing or allowing a vulnerable victim to die" is applicable to persons in the same household who have frequent contact with the victim, while the offence of "allowing neglect, physical or sexual abuse" appears to only be applicable to caregivers and employers of domestic workers. What is the rationale for the difference in the scope of liability in these provisions? I also note that in criminalising the offence of causing or allowing the death of child under 14 years of age or vulnerable person in the same household, we need to be cautious not to prosecute those who are in the same household but may not have the power to stop the abuse as they themselves may be suffering from the abuse. The Minister had earlier addressed this concern. I note that the offence will only be made out if there is a failure to take reasonable steps to protect the victims. I appreciate and thank the Minister for the clarification. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my queries and comments, I support this Bill.”
“Therefore, in cases where the abuse consists of a series of acts that eventually lead to death, the abuser is likely to be prosecuted under the crime of causing grievous hurt, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years' jail, with possible fine and caning. In Annie’s case, the perpetrators eventually pleaded guilty to various counts of causing grievous hurt and causing grievous hurt with a weapon. Cruelty against vulnerable individuals particularly offends our sense of morality as the victims are helpless and their ability to protect themselves is limited. To quote the PCRC, society reserves "special disapprobation" for the abuse of vulnerable people by their caregivers or others in a position of trust. There must, therefore, be appropriate and commensurate penalties against offences of such nature. I am, therefore, supportive of the proposed enhancements of the penalties for offences against vulnerable persons in this Bill. I note that in the wake of Annie Ee's case, the public also reflected on how such a prolonged abuse could have taken place with no one reporting the same to the authorities. The Vulnerable Adults Act, which was the outcome of, and was in response to, various concerns regarding abuse against vulnerable adults which had been raised even preceding Annie Ee's case, also took into account recent cases and allowed for more detection of abuse and protection for the vulnerable. The amendments proposed today address the other concerns about penalties and hopefully forms a deterrent against such heinous conduct. I would like though to seek a clarification about how the proposed clauses in this Bill would sit vis-a-vis the terms in the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
“It is a reflection of our principles as a society to strongly condemn inhumane actions towards those who are vulnerable. Over the past several years, we seem to see several cases involving victims who are unable to defend themselves and the current punishment do not appear to be commensurate with the heinous crimes inflicted on the victims. According to a report by the Straits Times in September 2018, at least five such cases were brought to the Courts between 2016 and 2017, compared to seven cases between 2000 and 2011. Something needs to be done, and I am glad to see proposals within this Bill that increase the punishment on those who abuse and torture defenceless victims who are unable to defend themselves because of their own condition and also because they have close relations with the perpetrator. There are also suggestions for a new type of offence for abuses that lead to the victim’s death. This is a good thing and I support the recommendations. (In English): When people first heard about what happened to the late Annie Ee, there was condemnation against the heinous acts carried out against her. When people heard about the charges and the punishments imposed on the perpetrators, many voiced out their concerns that the punishments were not commensurate with the severity of the crime and the fact that Annie was especially vulnerable as she was intellectually disabled. At that time, AGC explained the specific circumstances which led to her unfortunate death and the limitations of the law which requires evidence that the abuser had the intention to cause death or fatal injury.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a lawyer in a firm that handles criminal matters. Sir, this is an extensive Bill which covers many areas of amendments of the Penal Code and several other Acts. I would like to focus my speech on the amendments relating to the enhancement of punishments for offences committed against vulnerable persons and the new offences for acts committed against vulnerable persons. Allow me to begin my speech in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A few years ago, we were jolted by the news about the death of Ms Annie Ee, an intellectually disabled person who was abused, tortured and punished by her housemates. Many people condemned the heinous acts inflicted on Annie, especially in view of her condition which made her more vulnerable to abuse, and those who committed those acts were people who were close to her. After the Court case ended, many felt that the sentence imposed was not commensurate with the crime. At that time, many asked why the couple who committed the offences were not charged with murder. The couple had pleaded guilty to various charges of causing grievous hurt. The current legislation requires the prosecutor to prove that the final action committed had led to death. This was difficult to do when the torture took place over a long period of time. Another case that jolted Singaporeans was the one where there was abuse inflicted on a toddler, Muhamad Daniel Muhamad Nasser, who was only two years old. He was kicked and slapped by his mother and her boyfriend almost every day and forced to eat dried chillies. The toddler eventually died due to head injuries. These cases shake us to the core as human beings. These people who commit atrocities on defenceless victims deserve a heavier punishment.”
“Often, such conduct comes from a space of ignorance and not malice. There is, therefore, a great need to continue to foster relations among people from different communities and allow for better understanding. I am truly grateful though for the ability to practise my religion without fear for my safety. I am truly grateful that many in the community can look beyond my tudung and embrace me for who I am. I am truly grateful for a Government that speaks out against Islamophobia even before it became fashionable to do so and continues to take the effort to protect interests of all in the community, including the minority groups. I am, therefore, supportive of the Government’s efforts in putting appropriate restrictions to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore.”
“IPS senior research fellow Dr Mathew Mathews said, "There is little question that global terror and how it has often been associated with Muslims has fed into the minds of a small group of Singaporeans, who thus feel that Muslims are threatening." It is a solemn reality that Muslims here in Singapore must face. But I think there is much that could be done to create opportunities for greater understanding and for strengthening interracial relations. Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to speak in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I refer to the latest Working Paper by IPS. One of the published findings was about the percentage of Singaporeans that find Muslims threatening. Fifteen percent of the respondents stated this. This is certainly not the perception of the majority of respondents that were surveyed. However, to me, the number is not small. This is a reality that Muslims in Singapore have to overcome. The issue of terrorism around the world and the past actions of ISIS to spread their message certainly had an impact on non-Muslims. We can decide how we want to face these issues. We can choose to feel anger or disappointment, but this will not change anything. I think we can adopt a more positive approach by seeking opportunities to continue building good relations with the other communities in Singapore. We can portray the true beauty of Islam and offer the hand of friendship to our fellow non-Muslim members of society. I am confident that with this approach, the other communities will gain a better understanding of our religion and values. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to conclude in English. As a minority in Singapore, there are occasions when some things said or done by others from other races or religion may offend me or my community.”
“He had to receive the punishment, but the resolution of the matter was done in a respectful manner and he apologised to the Christian leaders and the Rabbi. The line was drawn in that matter. As we come across various instances of inappropriate conduct in the future, there needs to be a calibration and assessment of the harm done to the community. I think it would be impossible to set out an exhaustive definition of offensive expressions, and we would probably have to look at each case in context. I, therefore, accept and agree with the Government’s current framework of assessing in material the context and the impact to the particular community towards which the harm may be caused and, in particular, to benchmark it to the mainstream views within the community. As we go down the spectrum of hateful and offensive expressions, we would reach the milder end of the expressions. There may be casual racism, inappropriate stereotype jokes, unspoken discomfort and even silent intolerance of another community. I do not think it is practical or even meaningful to legislate regulations for these forms of conduct. But there is still a need to educate and allow for discourse. In this regard, I refer to another piece of finding from the recent IPS paper which I referred to earlier which has caused me great concern. More than 70% of Singaporeans feel that people of different faiths can get along when living close together, but some 15% find Muslims threatening. Researchers found that those who dwell in private housing were more likely to think that Muslims are threats, compared with those who dwell in HDB flats.”
“As a matter of principle, I believe there is general agreement amongst the public that we need to take effort to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore. Most people would agree that we should do this through education, through the creation of common spaces and opportunities for social bonding as well as the creation of safe spaces for meaningful discourse. Many, possibly a lesser number, would agree that appropriate legislation needs to be in place to manage inappropriate conduct or expression that could incite racial or religious hatred. My personal view is that we need to have legislation. We cannot do without drawing a line that sets out what is criminal, what is unacceptable to a society. Appropriate punishment deters unsavoury conduct and helps shape the society’s norms. The difficulty is that what is expressed may lie in a spectrum of what is deemed hateful or offensive. If something said is offensive but falls short of being hateful, then what do we do? I do not think we can just let it slide. There must be a response as offensive speech also damages a society, albeit at a different pace. An indifference to something that is offensive can potentially normalise that expression in the long run and desensitise people to what is unacceptable. The Government cannot take a hands-off approach. I believe that there needs to still be some legislative restriction depending on the situation, but there needs to also be a whole lot of edification and an effort to sensitise the individual making the offensive speech to understand the harm he or she is causing to the community. On this note, I believe the approach taken with Imam Nalla some time back when he recited a supplication which offended the Jews and the Christians, was a correct one.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the "freedom of speech" argument is often raised when there is action by authorities that is perceived to restrict one’s rights. There is an almost automatic perception that restriction is bad and would gnaw on our civil liberties. Proponents of free speech often argue that it is a fundamental right. It is said that we need to allow for the marketplace of ideas to flourish and people should be allowed to come to their own conclusions about matters. In Singapore, there is a particular concern that the presence of many stringent rules would silence many, because of the fear of crossing the line. It limits open and meaningful discourse which may actually help clarify doubts and strengthen communal relations. We do need to embrace diversity of opinions and allow for a healthy discourse of even the most sensitive of issues. It leads to better understanding, and diversity can be a strength if ideas can be synergised and used for the good of the people. However, differences in views can also be a potential divisive factor that can tear our social fabric. Worse, an extreme view, an expression that spreads, incites, promotes or justifies racial or religious hatred, can be damaging to a community. We, therefore, need a good framework in place that allows for open and candid discussions in safe spaces and for appropriate restrictions to be implemented to safeguard and protect our harmony. I believe we also need a multi-pronged approach by having both legislation and education to address this issue. We need to also ensure that our people are edified, are sensible and sensitive, know what to reject and object to and that the right of free speech comes with responsibility and accountability for what is said.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in the wake of the horrific Christchurch shootings, Australian Senator Fraser Anning said, "Muslims may be the victims today; usually, they are the perpetrators." He also said that the real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets is the immigration programme which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place. These remarks are hurtful to Muslims, especially during a time of grief, expose an ignorance of the true Islamic faith and a lack of acknowledgment that terrorism does not choose its victims. Many people all around the world condemned his insensitive remarks and some labelled his statement as hate speech. There were, however, those who appeared to show support for the Senator. This was highlighted in the commentary by Michael Yong featured by Channel NewsAsia, where the writer expressed concern regarding the nearly 10 petitions set up on Change.org, a popular petition site, to protect Anning's right to freedom of speech. He also referred to posts and groups standing "in solidarity" with Anning and calling for people to "respect his freedom of speech". The number of these groups of people may be relatively smaller and their views are not mainstream opinions. But this fact is still disconcerting. Just last week in Singapore, IPS published a working paper on religion. The findings of the survey, which were part of a global study, alluded to some worrying facts. Researchers noted that a sizeable number of Singaporeans have no qualms about allowing religious extremists to publish their views online or hold public meetings to talk about them. Roughly four in 10 younger people aged between 18 and 25 felt that publishing was acceptable, possibly because of this group's increasingly liberal attitudes towards free speech.”
“Chairman, my question is for Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad. I am happy to hear of the efforts that MENDKAI is doing in aligning with some of the national programmes. I just want to say that the efforts that we do for the Malay/Muslim community is really with regard to trying to make sure that we succeed with other Singaporeans. The Malay/Muslim is part of the bigger Singapore, and I am so happy to hear that we are also aligning with the efforts of UPLIFT. I just wanted to check what are the other ways in which we are ensuring that the MENDAKI efforts are also being kept in line with national programmes, national key performance indicators so that we are also on par and also working towards the same goal overall in the country.”
“We now also have M3. What can be done with the community and the Government to increase awareness about these issues and to provide holistic support to help parents enrol their children into preschools? Update on KelasMateMatika (KMM)”
“What efforts are made to prepare our young for primary school and what is the progress of the efforts to prepare parents for this? I am confident that the continuous efforts by MENDAKI and our community in general will help us to keep improving our children’s performance and capabilities. Preschool Outreach to Malay/Muslim Community (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Education is one way for us to transform the life of one generation into a better life. With education, one can acquire knowledge and skills, and also have a better chance to get a meaningful career and a good pay. We are aware that we have to start education at a young age. If we think about it, families that are more affluent can ensure that the child is well looked after even before being born. The mother consumes nutritious food and this, in turn, ensures the baby is healthy. After birth, the child continues to receive nourishment and begins to be exposed to all kinds of early educational materials. At preschool level, the child's capability continues to be developed. If we compare a child that has been exposed to early education and one that has not, there is clearly a difference. It is heart-breaking if a child is unable to receive certain advantages because of family background. Therefore, it is important to ensure that all of our young have access to early education, regardless of family background or income. In the Malay community, preschool is informally called makan school. There are those who sometimes do not care whether their children attend preschool or not. This is worrying. It is our community's responsibility to raise awareness about the importance of preschool education. Community organisations, preschool education specialists and parents can work together on this.”
“Chairman, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Preschool education is crucial in preparing our children for primary school. However, there are still some in our community who are still unaware of its importance. Some may feel that learning to read and write should only begin formally at primary school, and they do not give due attention to preschool education and preparing their children to enter Primary 1. This has caused some children in our community to find it hard to follow the primary school curriculum and end up academically behind their classmates. MENDAKI has endeavoured to address this gap by providing specialised programmes to prepare parents and their children. Efforts under the key School Ready programme for children under six years old have been in place for several years. Has this effort achieved its outcomes and have we seen any improvement in our young children’s performance? Recently, issues touching on parents' responsibility in teaching their children were hotly discussed after a Facebook post by an adjunct teacher went viral. I shall not discuss the post, but one important issue that came up was the role of parents in early childhood education and the ongoing efforts to help children in their development. Perhaps some parents need a bit of guidance and help in this. I welcome MENDAKI's tireless efforts all these years to get parents to be involved in their children’s education. Efforts to raise awareness and also provide skills to parents so that they can support their children’s education and development should continue. Therefore, I would like an update and details of MENDAKI's school-ready campaign.”
“Recently, the Straits Times published an opinion piece from Katherine Mangu-Ward in the New York Times. She argues that in the quest for women's rights, a fixation on numerical goals can lead to a false sense of clarity and certainty. There may be different views about the importance of numbers and setting quotas, but I think the point she makes about how we should not lose focus of the more substantive work of changing perceptions is important. I feel that beyond setting numerical goals, it is important to get the whole community, men and women, on board to change cultural mindsets and progress together. The struggle by women for equal opportunities and due recognition has gone on for a very long time in human history. Although there has been progress, there is still some way to go in addressing many issues. In Singapore, boys and girls have equal access to education, husband and wife are treated as equal partners in a marriage and, in principle, men and women have access to opportunities to work in various fields. However, we still see fewer women in certain professions and positions, we still see women leaving the workforce or struggling to juggle different roles, and there is some way to go to close the wage gap between men and women. There have been various efforts to look at how to support and empower women, as well as to increase women representation in various fields. How can we meaningfully build on these efforts and encourage a change of mindsets within the community? For example, the Diversity Action Committee has made good progress in increasing women representation on corporate boards. How will the newly formed Council for Board Diversity build on these efforts? What other initiatives are there to champion women and empower them to progress?”
“Earlier this year, MSF announced enhanced early intervention for children with developmental needs. This was a welcomed move. Indeed, early intervention for children with developmental or special needs is crucial, and support that is customised to specific needs can make a whole world of difference. It is sometimes easy to put all children with developmental needs in one category. But there are many different types of developmental delays – physical, cognitive, sensory and many different needs. If an issue is identified early and targeted intervention is given, there is great potential for the child to overcome his or her challenges and live and function normally. My son Ayden has Down's Syndrome and, as I was looking up for information about the ways to support him, I found many examples of people overseas with the condition who have excelled in different fields. There are those who are undergraduates, those who have given TedTalks, those who are sportsmen – many who are contributing members of the communities they live in. I want the best for my son but I will love him regardless of his abilities and achievements. It is nice though to know that the possibilities for him and people like him are endless. It all comes down to early support and intervention. It is, therefore, important that we put in effort to curate the best support and curriculum for our children with needs, to ensure the best possible outcome. I would, therefore, like to find out more details about how the customised early intervention would be implemented. How can we ensure that our children will receive the specific support that they need for different developmental needs? In addition, how can MSF ensure that the quality of the early intervention is kept on par with international standards?”
“Chairman, I have a question for Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. He had earlier given a very descriptive plan of the cybersecurity state of affairs in Singapore and I wanted to just understand a little bit more about how we are assessing or measuring the savviness of our people in dealings in cyberspace because it would be useful to actually understand where some of the weak points are. The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier about issues with regard to using lax passwords, phishing and all that. Clearly, there are some areas where we could improve on and I appreciate the efforts by the Media Literacy Council as well as the NLB with SURE. But are there some areas that we could look at on how we can measure and assess and target some of the efforts so that we can improve cybersecurity in Singapore?”
“The most robust cyber defences are susceptible to breaches even by the act of that one single user, whether it is because of lax passwords, unknowingly leaking confidential data or falling prey to phishing attacks that trick users into giving up sensitive data. In this regard, how can we improve cybersecurity awareness among citizens and businesses so that we can continue to leverage the opportunities that technology brings while minimising the threats online? Cybersecurity Agency”
“The advent of technology has brought with it new ecosystems and new methods of engagement. Technology and, in particular, the Internet, has changed the way we socialise, work and do business. These changes have brought about massive improvements by connecting people as well as increasing efficiency and productivity. However, there are people who have sought to misuse and cause harm to others on these new platforms. Last year, Singapore's overall crime rate went up by 1.4%, propped up mainly by a surge in online-related scams. There was also a 40.3% increase in the number of crimes under the Computer Misuse Act. We have also seen several instances of cyberattacks in public domains, like the recent high-profile SingHealth cyberattack which affected 1.5 million patients. Private entities are also prime targets for digital attacks. In 2017, Uber announced that the personal information of over 57 million Uber users and 600,000 drivers were exposed by hackers. In November 2018, Marriot International also announced that cybercriminals stole data of approximately 500 million customers. As the Government boosts the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure and strengthens the legal framework to deal with digital crime, it is important for the community to be equipped with sufficient knowledge and skills to protect themselves from online harm. Individual users, businesses and organisations need to be prepared. As we introduce Digital Defence as the sixth pillar of Total Defence in Singapore, we must remember that in most cases, humans or computer users are the weakest link in cybersecurity.”