Seah Kian Peng
Singapore
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Given the decline in volume and given that I can understand SingPost having their challenges, how does the Ministry ensure that there is no degradation of services that are provided by SingPost?”
“Yet, violence, domination, pain, harm and abuse also occur within the walls of a family. We need to be vigilant and sensitive in our approach. Hard rules and automatic application of these rules are a poor response to the challenges that we face today.”
“Both parents and schools have a role to play in shaping our children in the way they should go and I agree with Mr Don Wee that it is important for families to have open conversations about these matters.”
“Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard from many residents who come to us for these cases.”
“Second, we propose to put in place new processes to prevent the misuse of the MPA by parents who have abandoned, abused or neglected their children and did not fulfil their parental duties. In so doing, we also protect and spare their children from unnecessary distress.”
“The way we feed ourselves will not be the same. The way we live and the way we work will also be different – telemedicine, work from home, online learning and the need for insurance. But there are other things which will remain the same – resilience, unity, and a single-minded commitment to our joint future.”
The complete record
Every one of 752 lines we hold for Seah Kian Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 16.
“I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive answer. I am very encouraged by the very proactive affirmations that the Minister has made. Notwithstanding what we do to tackle this global issue, we will inevitably be affected by what others in the region do or not do. My question to the Minister is: is there anything that we can do to encourage and get, in particular, the neighbouring countries to also do their part so that, as a whole, no one needs to suffer the consequences of another country's inaction in this regard?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, could I get your permission to request for withdrawal of my question because the question was addressed in a Written Answer in yesterday's Circular? [Please refer to "Number of Piracy Cases Along Singapore Strait in Last Three Years and Measures to Protect Merchant Ships", Official Report, 3 February 2020, Vol 94, Issue 116, Written Answers to Questions section.]”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Just two short supplementary questions. First, we hope that it does not happen in Australia, the bushfires, but if it continues to occur in future, is it conceivable that this could come to Singapore – meaning that the winds change direction – and is it conceivable for fires in Australia to reach Singapore, and in such an instance, what preparations do we need to make? My second supplementary question concerns food security. Again, I hear our vision of "30 by 30". My question is: given what is happening around the world, how are we on track to achieve it, and is there a need for this "30 by 30" vision to be, in fact, accelerated?”
“I thank the Minister for the comprehensive answer. Indeed, I am very encouraged by the good progress that he has reported. I would like to ask one supplementary question. Beyond all the efforts taken, both upstream and downstream, and attempts to reintegrate these at-risk individuals with their families and into society, I would like to ask what efforts are being made, in particular, for them once they are able to get into the job market. What efforts are there that are made to help them find suitable jobs? At the same time, are there any schemes which would allow employers to also be encouraged or incentivised to take on board these individuals?”
“I thank the Minister for her answers. I am quite sure, in terms of CPF going out to encourage everyone to make nominations, this has been ongoing. The fact is that there is still 2% of CPF members who have yet to make nominations. From the Minister's earlier answers, it appears that it is the younger ones who have not made nominations. I wonder and I would like to ask the Minister whether 2% – it does not appear as a big number – but when you aggregate it across, it could be 30,000, 40,000 members who have not made nominations. Would the Minister consider making it such that nominations are almost automatic? For those who are not married, perhaps, could it automatically go to their parents? Just to make it even easier, if they choose to make new nominations, that could be done at the time that the member chooses to do so, as against now – notwithstanding all the reminders, statements to inform the CPF members that they have not made a nomination – it goes unnoticed and it remains a case where they have not made a nomination. Would the Minister consider such a suggestion?”
“In short, Sir, I support this Bill because we, in this House, we cannot say something is important and, at the same time, we shirk from the hard work of regulating it.”
“This is not always the case, In some countries, something can be recognised to be wrong and harmful but still remain unbound either because there is a lack of political will or because it lies outside the political culture. In Singapore, we recognise that in our best selves, we can rise above our primordial instincts, we can forbear from rash, unreasoned action, we listen to others, we can be dispassionate and rational. We value religious and racial harmony. But let us not be conceited enough to think that we are our best selves all the time, or even most of the time. Let us not be naive to think that what happened in history cannot and will not happen again. From this principle, we are, therefore, justified in making our laws more robust, in a climate where strident views are rising, and much that cannot be said in the past, is now freely promulgated online. There will always be critics who say that yes, they agree that religious harmony is important, but we should not be so ready to make new laws. We should trim our legal reach and give more respect and freedoms to the citizens. To do otherwise is to disrespect the ability of citizens to hold mature political dialogue. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on the need for realism above. A second, perhaps more sustained argument could be that the amendments make the laws more robust, which runs the risk of over-zealous application. Sir, if the risk is between overzealous application of the law, which can be ameliorated by members of the Judiciary, or that of under-protection of vulnerable groups of minorities, which does not appear to have any recourse, save the mercy and fair-mindedness of online mobs, then, to me, the former is far superior.”
“In Singapore, our Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, has said that there have been external influences trying to "reshape" how Muslims live their lives, including being "exclusivist". There is also the long-standing risk, with terrorist groups calling on Muslims to establish an Islamic caliphate. Let me now quote Mr Masagos again. He said, "All these ideas are new ideas, which are ideas from old texts or interpretation of old texts. So, these need to be addressed by our own scholars." So, what can we do against the force of religious beliefs? Other countries have found their own solutions. In the US, speech is prohibited if it is likely to lead to "imminent lawless action". The German Criminal Code criminalises the incitement of hatred against, or insult of, a racial or religious group. In the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. But it protects freedom of expression to a high degree, to such an extent that one can ridicule and insult, abuse any religion or its followers. The Singapore approach. Like many countries, Singapore finds hate speech wrong in principle. Like some of these countries, Singapore is willing to use the strongest institution at our disposal – our laws – to bind this wrong because of the harm it does to our society. Our approach distinguishes itself in two ways. First, we are nesting it within an ecosystem of laws that promote a high quality of public life and discourse. The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which I was a member of, heard expert advice which argues that the "visible hand" of the state is needed to fight fake news. Lies mixed with religious fervour presents an explosive cocktail. Second, our willingness to give force to this "invisible hand".”
“In his Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law Mr Shanmugam had defined hate speech as "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia or other forms of hatred based on intolerance." Our revulsion for hate speech stems from two sources. First, it is morally wrong, that is, wrong in principle; second, it has the potential to cause great harm. And it is this latter which carves out the three main areas which the current legislation addresses. First, the harm against society. Hate speech divides us, sets man against man, tribe against tribe; it stirs us up, it inflates and inflames our emotions. Second, and on the other end of the spectrum, it dampens our responses to and normalises outrageous behaviour. What may once have given us pause may now be shrugged off and accepted. In this way, we lose our collective public morality. In February 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General Mr Antonio Guterres called hate speech a "menace to democratic values, social stability, peace". And he pointed out the dangers of allowing hate speech to move into the mainstream. He said, and I quote him, "With each broken norm, the pillars of humanity are weakened." We cannot allow the norms of Singapore to become so lax that hate against one another's religion goes unpunished by law. Third, hate speech moves individuals to take radical action. In the name of overweening but ultimately false causes, we have seen Nazis against Jews during the Holocaust, Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda, Sinhalese Buddhists against minorities in Sri Lanka.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill promises a more robust approach to safeguarding religious harmony. By restricting foreign influence on our religious institutions, we also allow our national and religious identities to intersect more closely. Last, this Bill is built for speed, given the very large harm that can result from religious insult within a very short time. I see this Bill as one among a slew of others to protect our rights and the kind of society we have pledged to be. The Singapore model of protecting rights has always been one that relies on restrictions of freedoms, in an explicit recognition that rights without restrictions are empty. If everyone is completely free to do whatever we want, then we yield our individual freedoms to those with the most power, which, in modern society, has tended to be those with the most wealth. Countries which we consider to be democratic today are perhaps merely plutocracy well-disguised. I give two examples of laws which appear to trample on freedoms but yet provides the most freedoms for the most of us. The Land Acquisition Act is recognition that the rights of private property owners are sometimes subordinate to the claims of the state. The ethnic quota guideline in our public housing estate is evidence that the right to freely transact on the market is conscribed by the larger goals of racial harmony through the everyday lived experience of all races. The restriction of hate speech is the latest in a series of these, a vital link in preserving the high quality of public discourse. Each restriction of vital freedoms is not to deny that such freedoms are important but is our way of recognising that such freedoms exist within a universe of rights.”
“I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answer which I have found very assuring. I have two supplementary questions. The first is on the four principles which the Minister had outlined. Assuming all the AUs come up with their own guidelines on what would guide them in terms of the curriculum, in the event these principles and their guidelines are not complied with, how will the Ministry intervene, if at all, and what form of intervention could this take? My second supplementary question – and this is something I have raised previously – is that in the area of certain topics, whether it is political science or liberal arts, I think a good sensing of the local context is very important. This is where my bias is towards having more local academics than ones who are foreign-based, whether we need to achieve some form of or calibrate the right balance. So, my question to the Minister is whether something more deliberate and comprehensive could be put in place to address that.”
“A few supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, we recognise the advantages that PMDs bring to society and they can create jobs as well. By and large, we have no problems with many of the users who use PMDs responsibly. The problem, as we know, is always with a small group of PMD users and also retailers who flout the rules. So, my first supplementary question to the Senior Minister of State concerns individual users who flout the rules, who do not know how to use it and endanger the lives, whether they use it on the roads or on the pathways. We know so many cases where there are injuries, near misses and it is very difficult, much as we like, in terms of enforcement, how do we report them. My residents have told me that even if they want to, they do not know how. The users zoom past them and there is no time to take a photo and all that. So, while the rules are there, the rules are no good if it is not enforced. So, can we think of ways where we either step up enforcement through technology or through more people? I am not sure how. I am sure it is a small fraction of the number of people we have to do this enforcement compared to the number of users that are on the road. So, that is my first question: how can we step up enforcement against irresponsible users, regardless of whether they are using on the road or on the pathways, because we cannot fix them, as what Mr Lim Biow Chuan has asked for? My second question is: I also echo the concern about retailers who are outrightly selling things which they should not. For them, I think stiffer action needs to be taken. There should not be any two ways about it, and we should be firm, we should be hard and should send the right message across to both retailers and irresponsible users.”
“I thank the Minister for the answers. As an avid sports fan, I am very happy that we have all those major sporting events that are brought to Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister a few things. First, I am sure there are many learning points that the Ministry has acquired as a result of this pilot. Would the Minister be in a position to share what these learning points are so that, for future PPP projects, this is something which we could all learn from? Secondly, I understand that the Sports Hub's current Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has left. Is it possible to share an update on the search for the new CEO, because without a CEO – I think with an acting CEO in place – it is obviously not ideal. So, just these two supplementary questions.”
“But when we offer a practical and calibrated solution, when this is proposed, they cry foul. If we all agree that this is a serious problem, what are the solutions? Since the SC’s recommendations, the Government has moved on many of the recommendations: first on the non-legislative front, and now on the legislation. I would like to ask the Minister to also provide a detailed update on the implementation of the SC’s recommendations. What more can the public expect in the near term? For example, can there be an establishment of a fact-checking entity, something which has been done in some countries? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had started my speech by asking if we ask too much of the law, and too little of ourselves. Even if POFMA had been in operation today, given the way the law has been drafted, there would have been very few takedown orders. Instead, there will be additional facts for people to consider, perhaps to accept if they are convinced, perhaps to reject if they are not. Online contestation is a vaccine. We cannot grow strong unless we are first made weak. We cannot develop unless we have freedoms, including the freedom to make mistakes and identify falsehoods for ourselves. In the process, we must develop an online culture of what it means to be a Singaporean, to be fair-minded, seeking recompense and justice; to be compassionate; dispensing mercy and second chances. As a young nation, we must grow into the best version of ourselves as Singaporeans, not just in our real and daily lives, but in our online norms and dialogues. We should not ask this of the law only. We should ask this of ourselves. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Today, we continue to see the use of bots and avatar accounts to spread falsehoods and amplify viewpoints. So, what is our response? This piece of legislation must take its bearing from the SC’s recommendation. As a member of the Committee, I must say that we decided to give a large role to ignorance and agnosticism. Sometimes, we do not know; sometimes, we cannot decide what is false or true. This piece of legislation is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer, as it provides a calibrated toolkit to address the problem of disinformation. In terms of the tools to address falsehoods, most of the time, we will use Correction Directions which will be used sparingly. Takedowns will only be for serious cases. These "Correction Directions" are a unique remedy, whose purpose is not to censor content, but to provide a broader range of facts for the public to consider. In line with our earlier laws on information, we do not stop the flow of information, but we do want to stop bad actors from profiting from falsehoods. The last resort, criminal sanctions. These will only apply to individuals who deliberately spread falsehoods which harm the public interest. Upstream measures include Code of Practices. The current form of legislation sticks closely to many of the SC’s recommendations. The SC comprised Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. The SC’s recommendations were detailed and signed off collectively. As expected, some opponents now criticise the legislation, but they have little to offer in response, except mere generalities. They did not contest the SC’s findings that online falsehoods are a serious problem, that they cause serious consequences in a very, very short time, that "drip feed" falsehoods have enduring harm.”
“Justice is not a lynch mob to be swayed and directed like a throw flame of moral panic. It answers neither to Facebook nor Instagram posts, no matter who writes them, nor to the distress or trauma of victims alone. But in today’s context, lynch mobs are easily and cheaply formed. The Minister shared how much the market rates are for some of them. Digital technology, such as social media platforms and digital advertising tools, can be a force for good. Yet, increasingly, we have seen how they have been abused by bad actors to weaken society, to affect democratic processes and to inflict harm. They provide convenient, accessible and cheap platforms for bad actors to exploit. On Facebook, we saw a livestream of Christchurch shootings, which reached a wide audience through re-sharing. This is the glamorising of terrorism, which many may participate in inadvertently. Twitter has allowed hate speech to proliferate on its platform. For example, in the name of freedom of expression, it has refused to ban Alex Jones’ Infowar account even after there was clear evidence of him spreading hate speech and disinformation. Closer to home, in Indonesia, after four Chinese nationals were arrested for allegedly planting imported chili seeds contaminated with "bacteria", these false claims were spread on Twitter, with the contagion spreading to Indonesian newspapers which accused China of using a "biological weapon" against Indonesia. This made its way back to social media, with many posts carrying anti-Chinese sentiments. On Google, in October 2017, during the Las Vegas shooting, divisive hoaxes continue to appear in top search results – anti-Semitic material topped search results. In the meantime, there were Youtube sites which were monetising this harmful content.”
“Social media platforms must recognise the primacy of public interest over private profit. In fact, the Minister had stressed this in his speech earlier. I had also argued for the moral duty of members of the public to think before sharing falsehoods. At the time, I had in mind political information and content of the sort that related to political events in Britain, and the elections of other countries that the Minister had also spoken about. In light of events in recent weeks, I would say this moral duty of the public requires a lot more attention. Given this limited application of the law, the ambition to protect trust in our institutions and democratic discourse is mere conceit if we conceive of it as being the preserve of the law alone. There are too many falsehoods, promoted and fanned by too many parties, with harm caused by a million paper cuts. The law does not touch these, and I repeat, rightly so. I do not ask for the law to be widened. Far from it. What I would ask of all of us in this House is to record our resolve to respond to the rise of such falsehoods through extra-legal means. Chief among these must be the development of online norms against guerrilla justice and vigilantes. The recent case of Ms Monica Baey in the National University of Singapore (NUS) is instructive. The truth is that Nicholas Lim committed a terrible act and Monica Baey suffered greatly. Monica Baey deserves to feel safe in her own hall of residence. Nicholas Lim deserves to be punished for what he did. But he certainly does not deserve the online hate, flames and persecution. This is something Ms Monica Baey herself has disavowed. But the punishment of Nicholas Lim cannot depend on the grace and magnanimity of Monica Baey.”
“Last year, I had spoken in Parliament about this, arguing that any proposed legislation on Deliberate Online Falsehoods stands against two common misconceptions about freedom in discourses – that truth will emerge naturally from a contestation of ideas. Political scientists know that ideas are a function of power as well as merit. This is the very concern of academics and advocates. I say it straight, that the hegemony of the People’s Action Party will lead to their ideas travelling further and hitting harder than others. The Minister for Education had last week said that this Bill does none of that. It is less a matter of giving power to some ideas, than correcting falsehoods. In the majority of cases, merely putting out the right facts against the wrong ones, rather than taking down the latter altogether. The assumptions are less to do with political power than the behavioural bias embedded in all of us. I had previously spoken about two false assumptions that unfettered freedoms rely on: first, that people have infinite time and capacity to make decisions; and second, that people change their minds when presented with new facts. Given that these two assumptions are largely false, the state has a public duty to reduce falsehoods. As a member of the SC, we examined and noted the extent and serious consequences that Deliberate Online Falsehoods can cause. This duty to reduce Deliberate Online Falsehoods is one whose specific form is being debated in democratic countries across the world. Singapore needs to move fast. Last year, when I had spoken on the Motion on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, I had said that current provisions were manifestly inadequate and requires further action on two fronts: the private sector and society itself.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister has large ambitions for this Bill, and I wonder if the Bill, as it stands, can live up to them. My suspicion is, perhaps not. Given our society today, I wonder if we ask too much of the law and too little of ourselves. First, let me say that I agree with the premise of the Bill, that the impediments to full, transparent discourse is less a matter of lack of information than one of too much, too complex and partly false information. The word "partly" is important because online falsehoods are seldom completely false. Most misleading messages hold a grain of truth, but their sum total is a lie. The Minister has given a few examples, and I will give one more later on. Second, I also agree with the instrumental value of the Bill, namely, to reduce the instances of such falsehoods and to empower the Government to correct and, as last resort, remove such falsehoods that are deemed to cause public harm. The threshold for the application of this law is necessarily very high, as it should be. We should not allow this law to stymie public discourse, robust debate and the growth and flourishing of contested views. The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh expressed deep concerns about how the Bill supposedly confers the Executive excessively broad and unprecedented power. But I think Mr Pritam Singh does not address Minister Shanmugam's explanation that the Bill, in fact, narrows power under existing laws which themselves have been around for more than 30 years. Mr Pritam Singh also raised the example of Nas Daily. But Minister Shanmugam had also addressed the example in his speech and explained when and why statements in respect of that would be covered.”
“A flexible enforcement of laws may be one way of coping with the clash of two fundamentals but, as I have said before, it is not Singaporeans' way. Ours is a more difficult, more rigid and, some would say, less liberal model. This may indeed be so, but it is a choice that does not denigrate freedoms in general, but instead, respects as many freedoms as possible. It certainly does not place the freedom to express hate over the freedom to practise one's religion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I spoke about tribal instincts which cannot be denied. Such instincts create mistrust, hostility and, as we have seen in recent days, death and dissolution. But our tribal instinct also creates heroes, when the best among us strives to protect the rest, when we see altruism, kindness, fair play, duty and sacrifice. We cannot legislate heroism, no more than we can outlaw villainy. But we can and must use laws to give the best chance for our ambitions to do good, and to constrain, deter and severely punish those who plan to do evil.”
“Standing against this, our existing laws may be good enough as there are adequate provisions. So, I argue that what we need is tighter and proactive enforcement. Strong enforcement will also provide deterrent effects because knowing that the Government is serious about enforcement has real consequences on behaviour, both among the people and corporations. In 2017, Germany became the first country in the EU to introduce a dedicated law against online hate speech that allows authorities to fine social media companies which fail to remove hate speech posts that violate German law within 24 hours. Companies could be fined up to €50 million under the law. This came about after the German government examined a report showing a 77% surge in hate crimes in Germany in the previous year. As an immediate response to the law, in January and February 2017, Youtube deleted 90% of hate speech videos reported by users, Twitter deleted 1%, Facebook deleted 39%. So, laws have effect, but not all the time. We see this in the continued existence of hate speech, instances of clear violations that persist with impunity. Australia, for example, does not have a strong record of confronting white nationalism. In recent years, we see Government senators voting for a motion that it is "okay to be white". We have seen politicians there saying that the real cause of the New Zealand street tragedy to be "the immigration programme that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place" and these politicians have gotten away scot-free. So, this is not because Australia does not have laws against hate speech, although some may argue that such laws have been weakened in recent years, but it is because there is a political culture there that tolerates such open airing of views.”
“We did so because it was wrong, and the nature of this "wrong" is that it is against the norms of what we stand for, as well as the possible harms that could arise. In most cases, the actions we take are in advance of these harms, that is, we take a pre-emptive approach to minimise harm. This opens us up to criticism of being overly authoritarian, of infantilising the public, or not respecting people's ability to govern, control or decide for themselves. Why so hypersensitive? "What is the harm?", people asked. We may be able to outline these harms, but if we do our job well, the public may never experience them, and hence, never believe that the risk of such harm was real. This creates a very different kind of problem. A dilemma that we need to solve. And this brings me to my last point about whether we ought to enforce our laws relating to hate speech strictly or loosely. The second method allows people to experience harm in small measure and, by the logic of vaccination, builds up our resilience and ability to debate contested ideas. I agree that contestation of ideas and debate is valuable in many areas, but relating to this body of legislation, I argue for a strict application. Why? The point has been made by the Minister for Home Affairs – the nature of law flows to the nature of the country. We, in this House, can choose whether we want to be more proactive and tough in the applications of our laws, especially when these are extended to new hard cases. So, I would rather be conservative and safe than experimental and sorry. Many older societies have seen the fractures, fissures and wounds which, once opened up, are hard to heal, especially on matters relating to race and religion.”
“In 2016, the European Union (EU) established the Code of Conduct, as a push for social media platforms to crack down on hate speech. Subsequently, four giant information technology (IT) companies – Google+, Instagram, Snapchat and Dailymotion – decided to join the EU "Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online". Our Home Affairs Minister has pointed out the relatively lax legislation both in the UK and the US. This is not because they do not see hate speech as wrong, but because they see freedom of expression as right. Two wrongs do not make a right, but what do two rights make? When the right to freedom of expression is fundamental, and the right to freedom of religious belief is fundamental, what do we do? The extreme liberal approach is to do nothing and let the two fundamentals contest in the open. That is one approach. But that is certainly not ours. We cannot leave it to the law of the jungle. We cannot say, "This is not a government problem. Let the people fight it out. Let the people sort it out among themselves." We must say, as we are doing today, "This is allowed in the public space – and that is not." Our laws must provide guidance on the clash of rights, not just in Court but in everyday life. This is my first point about the non-fundamentalist nature of our approach to freedom of expression. My second point relates to hate speech legislation and the degree to which it should be regulated. I mentioned about the Charlie Hebdo incident and Singapore's strong stance against publishing images offensive to members of our community. In this case, because of the tragic murder, there were few critics of what we did. But remember that we had censored the images in advance of the shootings.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to talk about three ideas which underline Singapore's approach to hate speech – two conceptual and one practical. The first is on non-fundamentalist approach to freedom of speech and expression; the second, our pre-emptive approach to hate speech legislation, and the last, a warning against toothless legislation. In 2015, the British press, unlike some newspapers in Europe, collectively decided not to republish the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad which led to the slaughter of 12 staff working in the office of Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian newspaper argued that in Britain, editorial decisions have always been guided, not just by law, but by a sense of "what is fair and tolerable within British society". The press in Singapore here, too, did not publish the cartoons. Further, the version of The Economist which was distributed in Singapore had the cartoon redacted. Tribal instincts cannot be eradicated, nor should we want to. The irrationality of love is matched, and often outmatched, by the irrationality of hate. Even as we promote our best selves, we must constrain our worst. We do this softly through education, moral suasion and social norms. But we must also do this with unequivocal force through the smite of laws and their strict enforcement. Many countries have laws against hate speech. In the UK, laws make it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress". This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite "racial and religious hatred", as well as "hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and language that "encourages terrorism".”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. I have two supplementary questions for him. The first is, the Minister has said that the PPP model still works. Given that these are critical water assets and having seen what has happened and the assurance from the Minister that the Ministry is looking further into the safeguards that are currently provided, I would like to ask the Minister which are these areas that we think need to be further improved on. The fact of the matter is that it did occur here and this is an area which we know we cannot take chances on. My second supplementary question: we would all have residents who are also investors in Hyflux. The current actions by PUB and the Government, the question that will be asked would be, "Should we bail out Hyflux and, in the process, help all residents and investors, many of whom are Singaporeans?"”
“Public housing is one of the pillars of what it means to be a Singaporean. But it is also one of our most under-appreciated forms of welfare. Home ownership is a way for us to provide peace of mind, to give the lower-income a disproportionately higher amount from our national budget, and also to communicate important values, such as family togetherness, resilience and optimism about the future. We do so with a complicated jigsaw of home proximity grants, means testing and eligibility criteria to ensure that the most disadvantaged benefit the most. Human lives are complex, and our rules reflect this complexity. Over the years, the rulebook for the sale, purchase and rental of HDB flats has become very thick indeed. Sir, I have spoken about "Officer X" in my cut on the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). One of the most important areas where I think Officer X can be deployed is to help the lower-income in rental flats. They also need to be able to help these families who want to move out from the flexi-flats and into bigger ones, including bending the rules on the MOP of 20 years. Indeed, if we do our job well, there may be many who see their lives improving substantially beyond 20 years. So, I would like to ask the Minister the following three questions: (a) An update on the Fresh Start Programme, including the problems encountered, such as the complexity of rules, and the difficulty in understanding them. (b) How does MND help public rental tenants to eventually own their own homes? (c) How can MND help to ensure rents remain affordable and do not disincentivise progress among tenants? Social Mobility”
“I would like to thank Minister Desmond Lee, Minister of State Sam Tan and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim for the replies and clarifications. I have been speaking at the MSF COS for the last 13 years. I cannot help but detect the number of cuts and the time allocated have been declining. This is one trend we would like to see. But as the Minister had said, even though issues are fewer, they are becoming more complicated, more complex and it requires all of us in this sector to work more closely together. I just want to, on behalf of all Members who spoke, extend our appreciation to everyone in the Social Service sector for their hard work, for their commitment, for their dedication. It takes all of us to make Singapore a more caring, more inclusive and a more giving society. It is my pleasure to beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,902,846,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $115,657,400 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Sir, a quick clarification for the Minister. In a quest to provide more comprehensive, more coordinated, more convenient services to residents, I have asked in my cut yesterday and previously whether our Social Service Offices (SSOs) should also consider operating during the weekends. So, I would like the Minister's response.”
“This is yet another example of complex needs, namely, people who sleep in public places, such as void decks or pavilions. Some of them are not known to any social service agencies or had declined Government assistance. We cannot force people to do what they do not want. But prolonged sleeping in the public not only jeopardises their health and overall well-being. It could also affect their ability to reintegrate and return to stable housing. What does the Ministry feel about this group of people, and what are we doing about the root causes of their resorting to sleeping in public places? What is the Ministry doing to strengthen support for homeless people who declined assistance? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“There is a link to the seven schemes – the Parenthood Priority Scheme, Multi-Generation Priority Scheme, Parenthood Care Scheme, Third Child Priority Scheme, Assistance Scheme (ASSIST), Total Points Scheme and Senior Priority Scheme, so, parenthood, multi-generation, married child, third child, divorce or widowed parents, tenants and seniors. And these seven then are multiplied across three different flat types. I shall stop here because I think I have shown that the schemes are useful but also very complicated and not easy to navigate for anyone. I make the point about the complexity of HDB rules not to ask for them to be made fewer, but for their application to be simpler. I suggest that the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of National Development (MND) set up a joint scheme and produce a magic mix – someone who is part social welfare officer, part housing agent, part financial consultant and, above all, an expert in navigating through the rules. This someone, let us call him or her, Officer X, could be sited in the community relations department of MSF or HDB. Their home Ministry could be MSF or MND. They should take as their model the information officers of the Ministry of Communications and Information where they develop domain expertise in housing matters but also speak to the specific needs of the Ministries and agency where they are sent. I shall say more about this in my cut on MND. If anything, the Minister for Social and Family Development, who is also the Second Minister for National Development, is best placed to make this happen. Another area which I hope Officer X can help in relates to rough sleepers and homelessness.”
“In answering these three questions, I want to say upfront that I know the Government has many schemes in place already. The deeper question I want to ask is: do people find the scheme easy to understand? Can they generally understand the rules? Let me ask this specifically. One of the most important actions we can think of when building a strong social compact in my mind comes from all Singaporeans sharing a universal dream, a dream of fresh possibilities, that if we are down and out, we have a chance to climb up and do better. If we are doing well and strong, we lend a hand to those who need it. And one of the most inspiring and practical ways in which we strive to do this is the relatively new Fresh Start programme which allows families to buy a 2-room flexi flat on a shorter lease and they can get their housing loans of up to $35,000 and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Concessionary Loans. But there are strings attached, as there should be. Strings that means-test to ensure that the rich do not benefit from a scheme meant for the lower-income. Strings on stable employment to ensure financial sustainability as well as to incentivise people to look for jobs. That is already complicated enough. But the scheme itself has 11 key features, including the fact that there is a minimum occupation period of 20 years. The 11th key feature says that 10% of the flats will be allocated to people who fall under a priority scheme. What are these priorities?”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100". The Government has put in place many schemes and services to support Singaporeans in building strong families. The danger is that many may not know about these schemes. We tend to think that if people need help, the burden is on them to find out about the avenues available and whether they qualify. They could, of course, come to see the Member of Parliament to seek advice and help. But people who need help often are stressed for time. Even if they had the ability, they would not have very much time to go through all the different schemes, let alone see the Member of Parliament. How can the Government make these services more accessible and streamlined, so that families are better supported, and can strengthen the bonding with their families? To this end, I have three related questions. First, for Singaporeans who for various reasons have no home to go to, what help can we render to such individuals or families? How do we ensure homelessness is not an issue in Singapore? Second, at the Committee of Supply (COS) last year, the Ministry announced initiatives to strengthen social service delivery and provide more holistic support to those in need. What is the progress of this effort? I must say I always find odd that our Social Service Offices (SSOs) are closed on weekends. Would the operating hours of SSOs be reviewed? Third, social needs are growing in scale and complexity, and the social service sector provides many support programmes to help vulnerable individuals and families overcome their challenges. How will the Ministry continue to ensure there is funding available to run these critical programmes?”
“Mr Chairman, my questions are directed to the Minister for Social and Family Development, Mr Desmond Lee. First, I welcome the changes to the ComCare assistance schemes for the short-term, medium-term as well as long-term. I note that this is part of regular reviews which the Ministry conducts. And, in this instance, it is quite a hefty jump, up to about 20%. So, my question to the Minister is whether these reviews could be undertaken more frequently and the adjustments be more incremental but do it more regularly. My second supplementary question is: when the Minister spoke about how the Government is helping Singaporeans in the area of social mobility and inequality, the Minister mentioned that they are starting some pilots together with MND, by launching community links at or near rental flats, to offer more integrated and coordinated support and customised programmes and services for families living there. Two supplementary questions. First, how will community links support the families within the neighbourhood? Secondly, how can partners, whether they are corporates, community or residents contribute to this initiative? And, Mr Chairman, if I can speak on your behalf, I note one of them is in your constituency. So, I am sure you welcome that.”
“This is a special group which holds a resource that no state intervention can substitute – the genuine love and care of a family member. Narrowing Inequality”
“For instance, while there is a demand for institutions and services to support long-term care, money and space for such institutions are both limited. We need, therefore, to provide greater support for this "willing but unable group" to allow as many Singaporeans as possible to be cared for and housed by their own families. This includes domestic helpers who live in the same house. What can be done to ensure the same respite and welfare for these helpers? For example, when we go to the Homes to visit some of these patients, we should also find time to speak with and interview the domestic helper. Another way is to touch base with them during their medical checkups. We now have a compulsory medical examination for helpers. Can we also include a psychological examination for those who are caring for the elderly or the physically challenged? Many helpers may not be given their days off, with family citing that they pay them in lieu. But money does not compensate for a day off from the day grind. Another group of Singaporeans facing challenges are those who stay in rental flats. MSF had earlier announced the plan to set up social service hubs in and around rental precincts. How will this initiative better support families living in rental flats, and how can the community play a part? Finally, Prime Minister Lee, at his post-National Day Rally dialogue, said that Singapore must not allow social stratification to harden. To do so, will, of course, require us to start at MOE. But we need also to remember that MSF has a large part to do, to ensure that Singaporeans who are less fortunate, people like my resident "S" and his brother are not left behind. Of this latter group, I urge the Minister to give greater attention to the group of "willing but unable".”
“Mr "S" has problems looking for a full-time job as he also has to look after his brother. The domestic helpers that he manages to employ tend to leave after a couple of months. Caregiving challenges, coupled with financial challenges, are such that the case management for Mr "S" and his brother requires a customised and personalised case management which the current policy does not appear to address adequately. So much of caregiving currently also rests on domestic helpers. We talk about respite for caregivers, but these are mainly for family members and relatives. Yet, much of the heavy lifting – quite literally, in the case of Mr S, because they would have to carry and bathe these elderly or immobile patients – and this is borne by domestic helpers. This is especially true in light of our ageing population. Within the span of 17 years, the proportion of individuals aged above 65 grew from 7% in 2000 to 13% in 2017. And by 2030, we all know that one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. As of 2004, there were already more than 210,000 caregivers in Singapore tending to the disabled, elderly, and physically and mentally ill. Currently, within Singapore, there are support groups, community programmes and services within the social service sector that are providing help and assistance to caregivers in tending to their beloved ones. Given the rising need for caregiving in Singapore, the Government has, in recent year, mobilised action to provide greater infrastructural and services support to caregivers. The Government has planned for increases in daycare and homecare spaces from 5,000 and 8,000, to 6,200 and 10,000 respectively in 2020. However, we have a dilemma of long-term care in Singapore.”
“Mr Chairman, today, I would like to make a specific point – what are the Government's plans to support Singaporeans from the low-income groups, particularly those with little or no family support? One of our key pillars for Singapore's welfare model is family as the first line of support. But for one reason or another, family members may not be able to care for one another. If we do a rough typology of family and care, we have two lines – able and willing – and we see that they fall into four categories. Able and willing – no problem and no business of the Government. Another group – unable and unwilling – is also beyond policy consideration. A third group "able but unwilling", has traditionally been the concern for social policymaking. This group has been subjected to a wide range of interventions, including counselling, means-testing for public service and, at the very last resort, legislation against neglect, such as the Maintenance of Parents' Act. We have seen over the years how, even when they are able, some children do not care for their parents. Today, I would like to consider the fourth group – willing but unable. How can we better support this group who want to do more but have little? This House recently debated over the Motion of CareShield Life. As we do so, I am reminded of the case of one of my residents, a man I would call "S" and his younger brother. As their parents have passed away, "S" is left to care for his brother who suffers from cerebral palsy and is also wheelchair-bound. The expenses for the two of them is about $2,000 a month. The family is receiving help from the Social Service Office (SSO) and also from other help schemes each month, but there is still a deficit of about $800 a month.”
“How does Singapore balance our engagements with Middle Eastern countries amidst tensions in the region? Relations with Japan”
“The Middle East appears to be far removed from Singapore, but its complex dynamics reach us across thousands of miles. The Israel-Palestine conflict remains of concern to Muslim majority countries and populations. There continues to be clashes along the Israel-Gaza border. Singapore, being in a region dominated by Muslims, requires us to be vigilant regarding these developments. Singapore is a speck of sand in the politics of the Middle East, but we have old friends there. In 1965, Egypt was the first Arab country to recognise Singapore's Independence. We also share common interests, such as the need to promote religious harmony. There are Singaporean students studying in universities in the Middle East. Notwithstanding the security challenges in the Middle East, countries in the region present opportunities for our businesses, given their vast markets and youthful populations. There is certainly room for us to create closer ties between the South East and the Middle East. Increasingly, we find that we may have some role in economic diplomacy. Previous visits by our top leaders have sought to increase business links between our two regions. Singapore’s investments in the Middle East have grown to more than $60 billion in 2012. There are many Singaporean companies in the region, such as Keppel and Sembcorp Group. Recently, Environment and Water Resources Minister and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Mr Masagos Zulkifli has suggested that Singapore and the Middle East could work together to develop water management technologies. Given these developments, I would like to ask the Minister to provide an update on our key engagements with the Middle East for 2019. How much have our investments grown since 2012 and have they borne fruit?”
“In February, we had asked again for Malaysia to withdraw its vessels from Singapore's Territorial Waters off Tuas, after a collision between Greek carrier Pireas and a Malaysian government vessel, Polaris. This is not something that we had not foreseen. In fact, we had previously warned our neighbours, the Malaysians, that through these actions of theirs, it poses a threat to safety of navigation in the area. Overall, our recent dispute with Malaysia has emphasised the need for Singapore to have a credible defence to protect Singapore's sovereignty. We have made clear our stand, and we have sent strong signals that threats to our sovereignty will not be cost-free. Patience is a virtue, but patience also has its limits, and it also cannot prevent accidents from taking place, nor does it automatically lead to de-escalation of tensions. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister what guidance he has given to our agencies in this regard. And specifically, what are MINDEF and the SAF doing to enhance our defences around Singapore? Managing with Fewer Soldiers”
“This year, fully a third of our Budget goes to Diplomacy and Defence. It is the lion's share of the Budget and, for MINDEF at least, spent in anticipation of actions we hope never to take, and events we hope never to transpire. However, the fact that we are prepared, willing and able will continue to make a difference in the way the odds fall for or against us. Deterrence is, as the Finance Minister has said, one of the two important prongs of our foreign relations. In this, I would like to first ask: what is the role of the SAF in the ongoing bilateral dispute with Malaysia in our Territorial Waters around Tuas? Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a few days back, has set out our Government's position and that of the Malaysian agencies with regard to the intrusions by Malaysian government vessels into Singapore Territorial Waters in Tuas. We have seen that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and his counterpart in Malaysia have agreed at their meeting on 8 January this year to set up a working group of their officials that will discuss the de-escalation of the situation in the waters off Tuas and will report within two months. We certainly look forward to this report. In the meantime, Minister for Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen, has also told this House how our security personnel will respond to intrusions into Singapore Territorial Waters. The Police Coast Guard, Republic of Singapore Navy and Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore are all part of the protective cover that we have, in defending our waters. For sure, there is a difference between what we can do, given our military equipment, and what we should do. Intrusions into our waters have taken place since late November last year. We have seen how these intrusions can lead to accidents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, our "Place in the World" for the past 200 years had been secured in large part because we know how to exploit and work with technology. In the next 200 years, changes will be even faster and more severe. We need to not just understand science to take advantage of these changes, but also what it means to be human. Our investment, therefore, cannot be lopsided in favour of technology. Only then can we have a Strong and United Singapore. Sir, I support the Budget.”
“There is recently a rendition of the classic "trolley problem", where people all over the world voted on how they would resolve moral dilemmas. Would they save one or many? Would they save the young or the old? Would they kill their friends or strangers? Answers differ all over the world. Sir, as Singapore develops into a smart nation, we need a collection of people – from the Government, ordinary men and women, policy scholars and moral philosophers, as well as scientists and private corporations, to think about ethical issues and how they ought to be tackled. There are different ethics committees now, embedded in different Ministries and agencies, for example, in biomedical studies and research. Given the complexity and interlinkages, I think there is a case, and I would argue for a National Committee for Ethics in Science and Technology giving inputs on hard cases at the frontiers of new decisions relating to science and technology. I must clarify that the frontiers are not those of technological progress alone, but on how they affect humans and human relationships. And what, whether and how technology should be deployed. Sir, this Budget has invested heavily in technology. It has made important provisions to keep us safe in the online space. The Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) Home Team Science and Technology Agency is one. Putting Digital Defence as our sixth pillar is another. Sir, we should make a small additional provision to keep us not just safe, but strong, by allowing members of the public, as well as experts from the various humanities and social sciences, to debate, consider and crystallise our key ideas and feelings about what is right or wrong for us to do, using all the technological means we have at our disposal.”
“But how do we guard against the bitter, the disaffected, the maladjusted or the pathological? The greater the power, the greater the evil that men can do. One thing we can and should do is to invest more in humans, even as we invest in technology. For each course in information technology (IT), data analytics and cybersecurity, we need one on psychology, sociology, human relations; for each new resource in the IT department, a similar one in the HR department. We talk about industrial revolution but the quieter yet more violent one lies in the companion revolution in the way we work and relate to one another. Technology allows us to do more. The humanities allow us to know why and how we ought to deploy our new powers. This calls for a way we think and invest in education, but also, what we can do, in Government. Beyond good and evil. Finally, Sir, I want to make one specific suggestion. We have long vaunted our ability to tell “hard truths”, to value “doing the right thing” over doing the popular one. But with increasing use of AI and machines, our ability to tell what is the right thing we ought to do may be severely compromised. Our ability to incorporate technology in our lives has far outstripped our ability to reason morally about the choices that we will be forced to make as a technological society. This is no longer a choice between the right and the popular, the short and the long term, but the choice on how to programme machines to make choices that are not just about efficiency and speed, but about values – good, bad, right, wrong. We know of the accident with the autonomous vehicle at one-north where, thankfully, no one was hurt. If there was, to whom do we attribute the blame?”
“But after a while, the level of usage stagnated. So, we talked to our customers. We realised that not everyone had a credit card and then there were also some who, even though they had one, preferred to use cash and so we started to work on the next generation of self-checkouts which also accepted cash in addition to credit cards. Not surprisingly, with this new generation of self-checkouts that accepted cash as well as credit cards, we saw another huge jump in customer transactions at these self-checkouts. Smart Nation; User Problems. Sir, we have put quite a large budget towards our move to being a Smart Nation. But should we pause to reconsider that even as machines become more powerful, people remain equally frail? Technological changes allow us greater power. But the case of the leaked human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) identities and the MOH data leaks show us that user problems are as present as ever. Sir, we will always have the careless, the malicious and the spiteful amongst us. We will always have unfriendly states, underhanded attacks, subversions. The difference is that technology gives us all greater power. Therefore, I say, while we should not stop in our journey towards a smart nation, we ought always to remember “user problems” and give pause. Remember Parking.sg? It is a great app if everything works. If it does not, well, you ought to know that the following pieces of information have been given by you – your credit, your debit card details, the location you were at at that point in time, your vehicle number and so on and so forth. I think it is a risk many of us are willing to take, and I certainly do not want to paint alarmist hypotheticals. My concern is a separate one. We can try and ringfence technological gaps.”
“NTUC FairPrice, in our transformation journey, is building automated distribution centres, online platforms and at the stores, adopting technology to help improve processes. Our HR side, working together with our union, has had to retrain our staff to take on new jobs and work with new machines and technology. This is important so that our staff, especially the older ones, are not left behind. In terms of staff demographics, more than 50% of FairPrice's workforce is above 50 years old. For sure, this is not a walk in the park. But we are committed to this journey. In an age of technological advance, the HR divisions need to rise to the call, to remember that we are dealing with humans, and to ensure that our regulatory regime keeps up with very human needs and wants. People First; Technology Second. There has been a lot of technological innovations in the payment ecosystem. With technology and the drive towards a cashless society, and with cashless payments becoming more widely accepted, a rising social issue could arise. The obvious question that comes to mind is: will the poor be left out? We have moved from drawing cash from banks, counting cash, issuing cash to workers on pay day to getting everyone to have bank accounts. When the banks imposed a "fall below fee", it was the lower income who are likely to pay the cost. With cashless payments, like using quick response (QR) codes or mobile pay, the poor may become excluded. And yes, they may yet pay the cost of going cashless. So, we need to guard against being technology-centric over being people-centric. Let me cite another example from FairPrice to make this clearer. In our move towards self-checkouts, we started with having self-checkouts that accepted only credit cards. There was, indeed, a very good take-up.”
“You pay for what you use, and you get a refund for what you do not. That is an example where we used technology in a cost-effective manner to get us a service which we find useful. Technology needs a master, and we ought to be always careful of the purpose to which it is employed. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I know that there are a lot of workers' concerns on Industrial Relations 4.0. It covers issues, such as the infringement of personal privacy, because smart technologies can determine an employee's whereabouts. Working life is also becoming more precarious for workers with no laws to protect them. It affects the way workers process information, their working time and workplace relationships. The regulatory regime of our working life harks from the industrialisation era. This includes many practices within HR. For example, I hear of how an HR officer tried to convince her boss to install Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking for drivers, so as to monitor whether a driver is working or not. I am not sure whether this is the sort of working life we want. Meanwhile, in the F&B sector, in the past, we had inhouse delivery riders, say, in fastfood chains. These are permanent employees hired by the fastfood chains with rights and protection given to all full-time employees. However, when online food delivery platforms are up, fastfood chains increasingly do not need the same number of inhouse delivery riders. At the same time, riders themselves may opt to join delivery companies because they see their earnings improve. They do not see the important considerations in the short term – a career plan, stability, insurance and training.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I congratulate you on your photo exhibition, which is aptly called "Our Place in the World". Whether 700 years, or 200, Singapore's place in the world remains geographically small. But with careful development and husbandry, we have seen our little place become more prosperous and more secure. We often think that our dream of peace and safety can be secured by technology. And, indeed, in our armed forces, in the way we have harnessed technology to our service in infrastructure, housing, and even parking, we have seen how things can be cheaper, easier and better. But technology carries with it not just a chance at greater comfort and ease, but also a risk of great evil. Science or Technology. Sir, I would like to clarify briefly the difference between science and technology, two terms which we use interchangeably but, as the historian of science Thomas Kuhn has said, they are "profoundly different". Technology is about process; it is an instrument which helps us to make things better and is valuable for that reason. Science works to a different purpose – it is the pursuit of knowledge and truth – working towards an accumulation of not just how we do things, but in understanding the true nature of the universe – physical and human – that we work and live in. In this sense, science can be "hard" or "physical sciences", or "the human, social sciences". One can, therefore, be a very good scientist, but a poor technologist and vice versa. I make this distinction only to say that the pursuit of technological advances cannot be a blind one but must contribute to a useful end. For example, we would all agree that Parking.sg is a very useful technological product. It replaces paper coupons, makes it easy, quick and secure to pay for parking.”
“Just two supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. I am heartened by the additional measures that the Minister has shared, one of which he mentioned was the setting up of the compliance team. I believe it was last year. I want to have a sensing of how big this compliance team is. My second question is, on the one part we talk about deterrent measures. On the other part, for positions within the Ministry which we consider as in possession of sensitive information, I wonder whether we could improve – prior to the appointment of people to these positions, whether we could subject them to additional tests on character, things which can allow us to sharpen the process of appointing these people to these positions. I recognise there are no foolproof systems. But for these positions, perhaps it is already in existence, but I would request that perhaps these appointments be subjected to more tests prior to confirmation of their appointment.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. Just a few supplementary questions. I have spoken on this topic in previous sessions. In stating that there is about 50% of local representation in our universities, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any particular faculties where stints are under-represented in terms of the local academics in these faculties. First, in terms of universities, are there certain schools which are lacking? And then, within the universities, are there certain faculties where the number of local academics is lacking? If so, what are the measures that will be taken to boost these numbers?”