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 6 of 16.
“I thank the Minister and former Secretary-General of the NTUC for his answers. I just have a few questions for the Minister. Indeed, the cost of living is a big issue, and the eight-pronged approach that he has outlined, the strategies, are all very important. I just want to say that, in addition, one key aspect – perhaps, it is within the eight but I did not hear it – is about consumer education. Frankly, I think all of us know that eating-in is a lot cheaper than eating-out, wherever you may go. So, things like that may be simple tips. But I think they are useful tips which could be incorporated within the eight tips that the Minister has. Speaking as an employer, too, the cost of doing business is, indeed, something which needs to be addressed. I know the Minister has outlined some of them. In the case of at least my business at NTUC FairPrice – labour, rent and utilities – these are the three biggest cost levers. On utilities, we all look forward to the opening up of the electricity market that will help all businesses and individuals alike. But on the part of labour and rent, these are areas which the Government is in a position to see how it can continue to effect a dampening of that. During the tea break later, I will explain to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on some of the things she raised. I will fill her in on other details. My final point is that I am wearing the hat – again declaring my interest – as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NTUC FairPrice and also part of the NTUC Enterprise network. I think the Minister's eight strategies about leveraging social enterprises is something that the NTUC Group and the NTUC Enterprises will certainly be keen to work on and to play our part in seeing how, as a group, we can address this very important issue for all of us.”
“Just a few supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that the subscribers to oBike will have some recourses that the Ministry will look at together with CASE. I wonder, given that the large number of subscribers that are affected, I understand close to a million, whether something could be done proactively to make it easier for each of these subscribers to get their subscription fees reimbursed, given the huge numbers involved. My second supplementary question is, I understand the light touch that the Ministry and, for that matter, the Government has adopted, to allow all these new innovations to take place. But I guess a learning point from this episode is that we may need to recalibrate this light touch in the quest to bring these conveniences to consumers. We have seen the bad side of this happening. And this comment goes beyond the Ministry of Transport (MOT), rather the whole of Government, for any new innovations that are being introduced. We need to just be aware that, sometimes, the light touch may be too light.”
“Can I just ask the Senior Minister of State would the Ministry consider allowing tests to be conducted for persons with hearing disabilities? I ask this because I actually have some residents who are in those situations.”
“Just a clarification for the Minister. The Minister mentioned in response to my suggestion for mandatory reporting that overseas jurisdictions showed that there was a case that when you have that, it leads to over-reporting. I concede that could happen. But why I proposed that was because I felt it is better to err on the side of caution. If there is no mandatory reporting, we will suffer the other consequence that there will be under-reporting. I also note that the Minister said, therefore, he is relying more on whistleblowing. That being the case, I would urge the Minister and the Ministry to really step up so that this whistleblowing awareness is a lot heightened because I am worried that under-reporting will lead to real consequences for the vulnerable adults.”
“Such pre-emptive action ensures that whatever financial resources that the vulnerable adult still possesses are not taken away by abusers. As some points of clarification, this pertains to the issue of cost: who bears the costs of intervention under the Bill? For example, who pays for the permanent care or relocating of the vulnerable adults? Would it be from the vulnerable adult's Central Provident Fund, or the abuser or the Government? I think this point was raised by the National University of Singapore Centre for Biomedical Ethics, and I agree that some clarification would be good. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have argued that there is a case to be made for mandatory reporting and the inclusion of financial abuse into the Bill. As is often said, a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. The Bill, in combating the social ill of the abuse of vulnerable adults, not only meets the changing needs of Singaporeans – its ageing population, falling birth rates and elders who live alone – but also affirms the values of the Singapore that we all know and are proud of. The Vulnerable Adults Bill must recalibrate our traditional aversion to interventionistic laws, against the reality of the everyday lives of older Singaporeans on the ground. It should not be an obstacle against protecting the highly vulnerable, whether they be children or adults, exceptions must be made where called for. The welfare of vulnerable adults is one such instance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“We are well-aware of cases of over-trusting parents who part with their assets out of love for their children, children who subsequently forsake them, whether due to a lack of filial piety or disagreements in the family. Too many cases. Too many sad cases. Other cases include deceiving or coercing an elderly parent to sign a will or deed or taking money from them without providing support in return. Furthermore, financial abuse is under-reported, due to its subtle, non-tangible nature. In fact, one-in-three cases of elder abuse involved financial abuse as well, according to a 2014 study by Trans Safe Centre. Including "financial exploitation" under the definition of "abuse" in the Bill would, I believe, be a good starting point in securing the financial interests of vulnerable adults. The definitions used in other jurisdictions, such as in New York, Washington and Illinois, can potentially be transplanted with modifications. Some US states even go so far as to impose a mandatory reporting obligation on professionals who are aware of elder financial abuse. In fact, this is not the first time that the financial interests of the vulnerable have been debated in this House. The Maintenance of Parents Act, passed in 1996 and amended in 2010, allows elderly parents who are unable to maintain themselves adequately to apply for an order to have their children sustain him or her financially. The Bill tabled before us today gives us the opportunity to act more pre-emptively; to treat the scourge of financial exploitation at its root. Instead of ensuring that the vulnerable receives financial maintenance after the act of abuse has taken place, is it not more effective to remove the threat in the first place?”
“It is my view that the Bill, which already protects whistleblowers, can be tweaked to include mandatory reporting and yet protect these stakeholders from liability arising from provision of such information or breaches of any code of professional conduct. Penalising the willfully blind heightens stakeholder awareness of their wards' vulnerabilities and improves oversight over the welfare of vulnerable adults. The social need for adequate protection of the most vulnerable amongst us charges us with a moral duty to find this balance, regardless of how difficult it is. My second suggestion is to consider including financial abuse of vulnerable adults under the ambit of this Bill. Fellow Parliamentarians, such as Dr Lily Neo and Mr Chia Yong Yong, and professors, such as Prof Chan Wing Cheong, and non-government organisations (NGOs), such as the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), have repeatedly raised this concern. And again, Mr Louis Ng just raised this as well. As it currently stands, the proposed Bill only includes physical, sexual or emotional/psychological abuse. But financial abuse can be as devastating as other forms of abuse and neglect. They can also be precursors to physical abuse. As AWARE observes, financial abuse is "often accompanied by threats of physical violence, and compounds the vulnerability of a victim to further abuse and neglect". Vulnerable adults, due to their physical or mental infirmities, are less able to safeguard their financial security, or may be held hostage by their live-in caregivers, or lack the financial resources to take civil action.”
“The underlying principle is that with a group of people as vulnerable as those considered here, those who are unable or unwilling to voice their pains, worries and concerns, it is wiser to be wrong than sorry; it is better, in my opinion, to err on the side of caution, because under-reporting of abuse is likely to be the norm. The difficulty, as is always the case, lies in the details – who is required to report? Do we restrict the obligation to care professionals or should we include neighbours, friends and family members? What about finance professionals? Which types of abuse must be reported? Should less-tangible forms of abuse, such as psychological and emotional abuse, be covered? Would it be overly onerous to penalise the third party for non-reporting of such less tangible abuses? What about financial abuse, which my fellow Parliamentarian Mr Louis Ng just talked about? What sanctions will be imposed for failing to report, taking into account the bystander effect, that witnesses of abuse are more reluctant to shoulder the burden of reporting if there are other witnesses? Lessons can perhaps be drawn from overseas jurisdictions. Washington has a mandatory reporting requirement in cases of elder financial abuse, though relatives, friends and neighbours are exempted from this obligation. Likewise, the state of Illinois imposes an obligation to report on "includes employees of the state of Illinois who provide medical or rehabilitation services to adults, law enforcement officers and social service workers" to guard against elder financial abuse. More fundamentally, we must strike an acceptable balance between protection and intrusion into personal affairs, taking into account Singapore's cultural norm of non-interference.”
“Mrs A, she is an 81-year-old woman suffering from dementia and is incapable of activities of daily living. She was abused physically, emotionally and psychologically by her 87-year-old husband who himself is prone to violent outbursts. They used to stay together alone and away from their adult children. But their children's fear of the father made them unable to supervise the elderly couple, leaving Mrs A without any protective figures at home. The new Bill allows for such cases of self-neglect and abuse, which usually also involve uncooperative or non-communicative vulnerable adults, to be addressed efficiently, without the need for lengthy and unproductive negotiations with either the aggressor or the victim. Assessments of mental capacity can be enforced, the power of entering a vulnerable adult's premises can be exercised and, most importantly, there is a power to remove the vulnerable adult from the premises and to a safer place. This Bill allows us to act pre-emptively to protect vulnerable adults against caregiver abuse and neglect, and victim self-neglect. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wanted to point out a few ways in which I believe we can make this Bill better. What is missing from this Bill? My first suggestion is to implement a mandatory reporting system for all stakeholders involved in providing care and services for vulnerable adults. Stakeholders, such as medical and social workers, AIC, the Police and perhaps even finance professionals, could be legally obliged to report suspected abuse as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that a vulnerable adult has been neglected or abused.”
“Sir, protecting vulnerable adults treads a fine line between respect of dignity and compassion for the vulnerable. The Vulnerable Adults Bill is a timely and necessary creation to address the needs of a rapidly ageing population, and to bolster our existing legal frameworks. We have spoken much about bold ideas, but less about real action. This is an example of a small but significant change that we can make. A change that is literally a matter of life and death for thousands of older Singaporeans. The urgency and scale of the problem cannot be denied. By 2030, over 900,000 residents in Singapore will be aged 65 and above, and an increasing number will be living alone, from 31,200 in 2012 to 83,000 in 2030. Sir, I believe the number of adult abuse and neglect will increase going forward. The law, as it currently stands, is inadequate insofar as the state lacks the authority to intervene. For example, the state has been unable to enter the homes to render timely assistance to vulnerable adults who might be abused by their caregivers or are in a serious state of self-neglect, if the owner of the home refuses them permission to enter. The case of Mdm Ee, a 79-year-old single woman who lives alone, shows us this in real life. She is mentally incapacitated – a schizophrenic – and she has no next-of-kin. She rebuffs all attempts at treatment and intervention from healthcare professionals and social workers alike. Meal delivery services were also ignored as Mdm E left delivered meals at her gate. Hence, the risk of self-neglect is very high. The mentally-ill elderly who live alone, such as Mdm E, are prone to untreated falls and illnesses and may not have ready access to food. Another case shows how timely this proposed Bill is.”
“It may be that Singapore today is a problem for the foxes rather than hedgehogs, but we need first to recognise that foxes speak the multi-tonal language of values, rather than the universal language of money. We must, therefore, make language of morality our vernacular in policy matters. Sir, I support the Motion.”
“Mr Speaker, the rebalancing of economic with moral reasoning also leads us to see the injustice that we continue to be complicit in, by using up environmental capital meant for future generations. Sir, you will see that Singapore is changing. Our temperatures are getting more extreme. And within the past few months alone, I think we have seen unusually cool and unusually warm days. This is a significant problem and not one that we can solve alone. But we can certainly make a start. For example, in changing the way we live, and spend resources, in making changes to our diet, for one, and our energy consumption for another. We need to make sure that the capital that we rely on today still remains for the needs of tomorrow. In this, we require both morality and economics to work together, for capital to power clean technology for the future, as well as a massive change in consumer behaviour today. So, my third and final idea for reform – let us start an environmental behavioural change that will tackle the largest environmental problems of our times. To lower our carbon emissions with our energy efficiency and allow Singapore to impact the world by making it bluer, greener and less polluted. This is an issue which remains under-invested today, especially in the social sciences, and I urge the Government to invest in a research fund on environmental behaviour and change. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, mine is a simple idea. We need to insert and steer our values into the national conversation about prosperity and growth. We need to balance the economic reasoning with moral reasoning. We need to make what is cheap, efficient and quick to what is fair, just and right. It may be that there is no one policy, no matter how bold, that will address the most pressing problems of our times.”
“But here is the rub. When the premium on higher education falls, it is replaced by more varied paths, and decision-making always levies a higher cognitive tax on the poor. We must make sure that the transition to the new economic structure benefits the least advantaged in our society. At the same time, I know that we need to be sensitive to the accusations of unfairness, that it is unfair that the people who pay taxes get the least out of the system, that Singapore ought to be a country for all, rather than always take from one side and giving to the other. And yet this is the truth of a nation – those who have more bear a larger burden. It is how we tie to one another as Singaporeans, confident that whoever falls upon hard times, rich or poor, they will have a helping hand. This is our only safety net against fate and bad luck, whether in bad health or accidents. Incidentally, this also includes many external events outside our control. Economic storms can wipe out fortunes, making the rich today the destitute tomorrow. Hence, my second suggestion for reform – we need more aggressively progressive policies, to ask more from the rich, and lessen the burden on the poor. All in the recognition that in the veil of ignorance, luck and chance attend to all men and women, and all Singaporeans need to stick together through thick and thin. I do not mean this to say that we need a minimum wage, or universal welfare. Quite the opposite. We need a partnership of all Singaporeans, for a deeper engagement with Singaporeans with different needs, to negotiate paths through the complexity of our interests.”
“We might better frame it as a problem of an overweening dominance of economic magical thinking, a problem which, again, could be addressed by recalibrating the balance between the economics and the morality of our public actions. Sir, many have spoken about the need for equality, but we have spoken mainly within the current framework of providing everyone with equal opportunities. While it is true that inequality is lower today than at the start of Singapore's journey, we also worry that the stratification today is higher than it was in the past, a point which Minister Ong Ye Kung highlighted in his speech on Wednesday. And so, our measures must be correspondingly more aggressive, and we must slant inequality the other way. John Rawls famously said that we must try our best to treat people as equally as possible and any inequality ought to be to the benefit of the least advantaged. But today, where inequality exists, we must go further. And in a country where socialism is not a dirty word but a founding philosophy, we must be prepared to do more for equality. So, I suggest that we must increasingly and continually treat people as unequally as practicable, so as to provide the largest advantages to the disadvantaged. We must make sure that a boy born to poor parents must have more from the state than one born from the rich. I have said before in this House that this compensates for such matters as luck in birth and circumstances and I still hold that view even more strongly today. In the past, it used to be that a degree was a tried and tested way to climb up the ladder. Today, more and more of us, Ministers included, have said that a degree is not the only way. In the United States (US), the higher education premium has not increased for the past 10 years.”
“Rather, it is a reciprocity and a give and take which I feel we have lost by insisting on this strict calculus of benefits. Using a clean wage argument implies that all the years of free parking had tarred teachers with an "unclean" wage. Sir, I do not want to belabour parking any further. Teachers, I think, have accepted this and have moved on. But something still sits uncomfortably on this matter for me. And I want to address this squarely: not all Government policies have a complete recourse to dollars and cents. We need, within our current structures, to make more room from the lexicon of morality, duty, relationships and trust. This is not an appeal to populism. Rather, it is an appeal to the ideas of justice and community that have informed Singapore public policymaking at the start of our journey 53 years ago. The first practical implication of my idea: this reform must start at the Ministry of Finance (MOF), responsible for so many of our policy levers – a reform that requires an explicit recognition of the limits of price, cost and expenditure as a proxy for value, and to allow for greater use of discretion by public officers in recognising moral reasoning as a legitimate form of argumentation. Sir, I use the decision to charge parking to illustrate the kinds of conversations that we ought to be having. Thinking about the issue using a pure economic lens is, I argue, a mistake, as is the reduction of "clean wage" – surely a moral idea – to a mere tableau of taxable benefits. Without this lexicon, we will not be able to address the greatest problems that have arisen in our time. The current debate has framed it as a problem of inequality but that risks mere description without a thesis.”
“Such foundations cannot and do not exist without a conversation about values – not just what is cheap, but what is right; not just about generating income, but about giving meaning. For too long, we have made decisions based more on an economic compass, as if the use of $1 has the moral equivalence of the loss of another. Sir, it is time we recognised that money is merely a proxy for value and, at times, a very bad one. We need regulations on responsible use of funds, on fiscal prudence, good procurement but, equally, we ought to be having a conversation about reciprocity, trust and relationships. Teachers know this. They know the magic of little gestures of a sticker with a thumbs-up stuck on an untidy worksheet for encouragement for a little child who handed in his homework despite family difficulties; a treat of a small snack; a lift to school to a pupil who otherwise would not want to come. Teachers who have all these years paid for all forms of Children's Day treats and surprises for our children, all these things which cost them no small amount of money, and yet, whose value transcends price. Teachers who have bought their own red pens to mark the test papers of all our children, they do not think that "the Ministry of Education (MOE) does not pay for red pens". Let me use instead the whiteboard markers which they do pay for. They do not think "I should means-test the kids and give treats only to those who cannot afford it". It is laughable and an insult to think that they do this in exchange for free parking. So, of course, the withdrawal of free parking would not make teachers any less likely to do the many incredible, unpriced things they do.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the call for bold ideas by the President has received widespread response. In a sense, this is not surprising – good ideas are the product of long reflection and examination, but they are also, sometimes, the result of an urgent felt need, some local knowledge from ground experience or even strong emotional response. As we have seen in the past few days, bold ideas are not in short supply. But sieving them through the good from the not so practical or reckless ones, the strong from the popular and perhaps, even more difficult: implementing these ideas, if not flawlessly, then at least successfully, is far more difficult. It is far easier to write a policy paper than to actually make the policy happen. I say this not to belittle the role of bold ideas but to argue their limitations. We ought not to let ideas be our masters but think more deeply about their weight and impact. That is, we should worry less about what we do than why we do them. Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, I argue one simple idea, which is to rethink the way we evaluate ideas. We need to rethink the role of the market and of economic reasoning. For a long time, the economic reasoning that our Government applied to public policies have stood us in good stead. Whether in healthcare, housing or the management of much of our social policy, such reasoning has allowed us to make good use of our resources. The magic words in any policy was whether it was "sustainable", that is, whether it would "pay for itself". A long-term reliance on Government funding is sometimes the kiss of death for a good idea. For, if the idea was good, surely, money can be found from the market. But economic reasoning is empty without a moral foundation.”
“Can I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the current capacity in all these homes and what is the occupancy at these homes? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: All I can say is that the numbers of children and youths in these homes have been going down. In fact, the capacity has been increasing. In 2015, we had about 798 children; in 2016, it went down to 734; in 2017, it was 701. This is because we are looking at transforming the out-of-home care sector. We are putting more kids into foster families. This is a good development. And I want to assure Members that we take care of these kids because they are our future generations.”
“Sir, on behalf of all Members who spoke, I wish to thank Minister Desmond Lee, Minister Gan Kim Yong, Minister Grace Fu and also Senior Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for their responses to the various issues we have raised. Our appreciation also goes to all the other important stakeholders in this sector, from the hardworking and caring staff at the Ministry, to the social workers at VWOs, SSOs, FSCs and many others. Your work and your empathy assure the heartbeat of our country remains warm, caring and inclusive for everyone. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,972,104,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $116,334,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“I thank and welcome the Minister's announcement on the various measures to enhance social service delivery on the ground. As we all know, the key is about effective case management and coordination. In the roadmap, the SSO is in the centre of it all. I would like to ask the Minister what the role of SSOs vis-à-vis all the other players will be in that space. The second point I would like to raise is that I also welcome that the Minister announced that for the lower-income families, in particular, this early upstream approach is key. It enables them and gives them a way out. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a way where we could adopt a more proactive approach, almost to the extent of handholding this group of children from the preschool days all the way as they journey on throughout their education journey. Is there a way we could almost handhold them to make sure that nothing gets dropped? How can that be enhanced?”
“But our commitment to observe filial piety can be severely tested. We can be forced to a corner when we face difficulties upholding our end of the commitment. With the IPS study in mind, and without eroding the role of values or family as the first line of support, how does the Ministry see the role of the Government, social service sector and the community actively coming forward to help? How can the Ministry strengthen families, as well as the community, so that they are confident in providing care for the vulnerable among us? Office of Public Guardian”
“How do we balance the need to care for the older generation without neglecting the needs of the young? Stating it starkly, will we one day see MOH's budget outstrip that of MOE or even the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and thereby placing even greater demands on MSF as well? Indeed, the demographic challenges we face are daunting, with falling birth rates and a rapidly ageing population. In light of these challenges, how is MSF working to meet the changing needs of Singaporeans and our families? Care for Older People The recent IPS survey asked if one is willing to pay higher taxes to fund higher social spending on the elderly or go tap the national Reserves. Looking at the mixed bag of responses, there are almost equal differing responses. About 40% felt that the Government should chime in on the support. Thirty-four percent said otherwise. Interestingly, 41% believed each generation should take care of itself, without support from other generations. An almost equal proportion, about 38%, disagreed. I came across this feature from Assoc Prof Tan En Ser, Department of Sociology at the National University of Singapore (NUS). He postulates that in most Confucian societies, the basis of intergenerational support is filial piety, a value which prescribes that the adults have an obligation to support their parents if they are in need. Nonetheless, filial piety is an often-socialised term in this country. So, many Singaporeans exhibit filial piety and believe this to be an important and enduring trait. However, this attribute is easier to fulfil if there is financial independence either on the part of the parents, or the children are there and able to support their parents comfortably. We all want to be filial.”
“First, on seniors. Do a quick search on adult diapers in online marketplaces, and you will be inundated by the array of long-term care products and services listings. If we fast forward to 10 years, we will see more white-hair people around us. By then, one in four Singaporeans, or 900,000 of us, will be aged 65 and above. I will just be promoted to be a member in this group! Second, on the middle-aged. There is an increasing need for the younger population to plan ahead as they get older. But getting people to plan ahead earlier is an uphill one. Often enough, they feel they are "too young" to have a situation where they have a chronic illness or to do retirement planning, and that the policy message is for someone else. Also, there is a lack of recognition that many of the policies earmarked for the younger population are likely to have long-term consequences as they age, fertility rate, for instance. This is especially when the Government has limits to policy implementation. A classic example, I was just talking to a friend of mine. She is in her 40s and works in the healthcare sector. Yet, she is totally impervious to the policy messages because she has other priorities to think about. We know what we should do, but actually doing it is another matter. As we all know, we are all good doctors but bad patients. Good at dispensing advice but bad at heeding them. I just spoke of two different demographics – the elderly and the middle-aged. How is the Ministry working to reach out to these different groups? We will inevitably see, in time to come, that sales of incontinence products will outpace that of milk powder and baby diapers. How will the Ministry ensure that the elderly population is being cared for without curbing the well-being of its young?”
“Sir, we know of sportsmen and sportswomen whose parents fetch and send them to practise early in the mornings and late in the evenings. That they win medals is due to their hard work, talent and their families, but also, dare I say it, luck that some of them are rich. No one who braves a daily 90-minute commute on the public transport will not be hard-pressed to perform at the same level. We need to guard against inequality in Singapore; some are more tolerable than others. It is up to us to stand against those forms and those extents of inequality that will impact Singaporeans’ ability to live dignified and meaningful lives. The Prime Minister has explained that there is a concerted and coordinated effort among Government Ministries to tackle these challenges together in various fora. Specific to the social service sector, what is MSF's contribution towards tackling these critical issues? And how does it intend to work with other Ministries to ensure that all facets to tackling inequality are addressed? Finally, as mentioned earlier, we know it is the shared values of Singaporeans that lie at the heart of our social compact, building our resilience to weather difficult times together. How do MSF's programmes encourage and reflect the values of self-reliance, empathy and compassion? Inequality and Social Stratification”
“Sir, the need for empathy is well-established. The processes to ensure and encourage empathy, however, are very complex and perhaps not always possible to put in place. Our approach to designing social policies and programmes reflect the values of our society. The "Many Helping Hands" approach is the foundation of our social policy. Ultimately, it is the shared values of Singaporeans that are at the heart of our social compact. It helps us weather difficult times together, to move us together and forward to success. In recent years, we have been focused on making sure low-income households have a roof over their heads, that every child has access to food, shelter and education. But in today's Singapore, all this may not be enough to get them up the social mobility ladder. As we continue to face widening income inequality, the Government's approach to these challenges will continue to be based on the principles of "family" as the first line of support. Even if this is so, if "family", defined in the widest possible way, is the first line of support, sometimes, family members just have no means or resources. I have heard of an organisation that gives out book prizes to primary school students who show an aptitude in Maths and Science, to further expose them to opportunities outside of school to fan their passion for sciences. They are supposed to embark on a science project of their interest over the school holidays with an assigned mentor/volunteer and put up a show-and-tell. However, before the journey commences, some of them drop out; they have no one to transport them to and from the discussion venue as their parents are working on weekends. The intention to help exists but implementation can be better.”
“For example, although volunteerism is on the rise, only 29% of respondents aged 25 to 34 volunteered for a social cause in 2016. This compares with 48% of those aged 35 to 44. Why such a contrast? Do younger people have less time for volunteering as they begin their careers and families? If so, what sort of volunteering opportunities are there for them? I have an idea, especially for people who have never volunteered or who see lack of time as an impediment to doing so: micro-volunteering, where tasks are completed by a volunteer in small increments of time, at his own pace. They are in short bursts and bite-sized activities, anything from baking a cake for fundraising, graphic design for a charity logo, to knitting beanies for premature babies, or counting plant and animal species for non-profit or research and data gathering, depending on the needs. While micro-volunteering may appear to go against the long-term commitment I spoke about earlier, it is, in fact, a useful complement. Such activities are a good way to start the journey and may lead to a longer-term commitment in the future. Such volunteers also bolster the core group during peak times. Sir, I do not advocate any particular model. But I do think all volunteering helps the community and social ties. This is always useful because thinking about the good of others, and not just ourselves, is a vital part of what it means to build a country. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100". All of us know of many in our society who desire to do good for others and who care for the less fortunate. Question is how will the Ministry partner the private and people sectors to create more opportunities for Singaporeans to step forward and, in the process, enable Singaporeans to contribute meaningfully? Singapore Cares has what I think is a simple but very difficult goal – to make doing good a sticky form of behaviour, to make volunteering and to make thinking about the good of others a habit of mind and a way of life. About one in five people volunteered in 2014. This is up from one in 10 in the year 2000. This is good news. But often, we have one-off projects that may have been started by an enthusiastic group whose initial fire has dimmed; such projects are laudable but, if ad hoc, not as powerful as they should be. We need such efforts to be embedded within the structures of our social life. What I have in mind is something like Singapore (SG) Cares, which treats people who need help as part of the Singapore family, and sees our commitment in time and effort, supported by different social groups, from families, schools, companies and grassroots organisations. Can I ask the Minister for an update on SG Cares, what has been done in the past year since its launch, and what his plans are for the future? In particular, I would like to ask the Minister what data he plans to collect, to measure not just the number of volunteers, but the stickiness of programmes and whether volunteers prefer to stick to one particular type of activity or prefer to try out different things.”
“Mr Chairman, two clarifications for Minister Masagos. First, I am delighted that our per capita water usage has just gone down to 143 litres a day. I would like to ask if there is a target that we are aiming towards to make it more sustainable and, if so, by when. My second clarification is: the Minister mentioned that if we get our policies right, there is no need for a Day Zero campaign. I certainly hope so. My question is: having a campaign, having a water rationing exercise island-wide, would this not nudge us, bring the entire population towards this goal and, in the process, also build our water, physical or mental resilience? So, I see a lot more benefits, I do not see any downside. So, I would urge the Minister to review this decision.”
“" As I have suggested in earlier debates, will the Minister reconsider conducting an annual water rationing exercise island-wide to households and businesses, to build water, physical and mental resilience? Should we have our "Day Zero" campaign to drive home these points and change behaviour?”
“Sir, Cape Town is the second largest city in South Africa after Johannesburg. I have been there a couple of times. It is a beautiful coastal city, and has a population of four million, is a world-class cosmopolitan city with a vibrant night life. But this city is running out of water. Earlier this month, Cape Town implemented new water restrictions. Residents are asked to curb water usage to 50 litres per day. A month earlier, their daily allowance was at 87 litres. If water levels continue to fall, it is predicted that the city will run out of water by 16 April, which has been named "Day Zero". The last water rationing in Singapore happened 53 years ago in 1963, during one of the worst droughts on record, when appeals to the public to conserve water fell on deaf ears. That exercise lasted 10 months. In the years since, we have become conditioned to the comforts of modern living. Can the Minister tell us what impact the hike in water tariffs last July have on consumption? Will they influence how the next wave of hike will take place this July? Evidence suggests that the demand for water is relatively inelastic. If the point of raising the water tariffs is to recover costs, then what we have done may be enough. But if the point is to raise our awareness of the strategic value of water, we need to do more. Borrowing the words of Mr Leong Sai Mooi, who was interviewed when he was 65, as he recounted the water rationing days of the 1960s, I quote him, "Back then, every morning, I worry that the tap would not work. It made me realise how important water was and never to take it for granted.”
“Chairman, just two short clarifications. The first is addressed to Minister Ng Chee Meng. In my cut, I talked about the Ministry's views or actions over the burgeoning expenditure on tuition and how I feel this disadvantages students of lower socio-economic background. So, I would like the Minister's response to that. What can we do to address that? The second clarification is directed to Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low Yen Ling on the composition of local academics in context-sensitive faculties in our local universities. What are the Ministry's views towards this? Is there a need, is there a deliberate attempt to increase this composition or number?”
“Chairman, we are living in an increasingly interconnected world, and it is right and appropriate that our workforce reflect this global diversity. However, back in 2013, I was surprised that Singaporean academics formed the minority in context-sensitive fields in political science, public policy and the communications departments in local universities. About a third of university academics in the UK are from outside the UK. This is according to figures published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. Saudi Arabia has gone down the localisation route, by hiring foreigners for academic positions at government universities as a last resort. Last year, the Minister in an earlier reply to me, mentioned that the percentage of foreign academics have declined from 47% 10 years ago to 40% today. The Minister had recognised the importance of academic staff diversity, in tandem with having our universities imbued with local character and identity. With an eye on the latter, how confident is the Minister that the various talent and research schemes and platforms will result in a more equal footing in some key departments? What are some of the reasons this has happened and what is the impact that the Minister has noticed? Do we know why some Singaporean academics find it hard to get to teach in local universities or why so few are tenured in local universities? Can the Minister provide more clarity on these issues?”
“Sir, there are foundational engineering courses under the Common Entry Programme (CEP), where they will receive their Engineering diploma. CEP would enable students to be exposed to different specialisations within engineering, before deciding on a specific engineering diploma. I understand that these are for students who are interested to pursue this broad subject but would like more time to discover their areas of interests before selecting a diploma of their choice in the second semester or second year. Many of us have been in that position before – not sure what to do, what we would like to do, what to pursue for our studies and for our career. So, I think having such a CEP is a good move. With this exposure, the students will have opportunities to tread on shallow water before taking the plunge, thus minimising bad career decisions at the end of the road. It is also a way for us to embed the required DNA, core of the discipline into each subject, while giving students free rein to explore their specialisation later on. At the broader level, can the Minister provide an update on its efforts to provide more options for polytechnic students to explore their interests and strengths before choosing their specific course of study? I have two other specific questions for the Minister as follows: (a) are there now more engineering graduates with the inception of CEP; and (b) secondly, does the Minister intend to expand CEP to non-engineering subjects? 5.00 pm Experiential Learning at Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs)”
“Recently, my friend from the corporate sector attended a kick-off meeting, where staff was introduced to the concept of VUCA, which stands for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous, and the importance for both staff and organisation to be aware of and thrive in a VUCA environment. Similarly, in 2013, the then-Minister for Education envisaged what every Singapore child should achieve in 10 years of basic education, where deliberate shifts are made away from academic grades towards providing opportunities for students through diverse and real-world learning experiences to discover their interests and talents, develop life skills and find joy in learning because if the real world when they grow up is going to get more VUCA, then all the rigours in academia will not save them. A 2015 survey done jointly by The Straits Times and research company Nexus Link found a staggering seven in 10 parents of children from preschool to secondary levels sending them to tuition classes. All in all, they spent $1.1 billion a year on tuition, according to the national Household Expenditure Survey released in 2014. I am sure this number would be even higher now. So, I wish to ask the Minister to, firstly, provide an update on the Ministry's efforts to set students on a holistic learning trajectory, and how they are bearing fruit, as a midpoint check; secondly, review tuition cost expenditures, which disadvantage and pressurise students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds; and finally, take the lead and provide solid data that there is no link between tuition and better performance, to dispel the herd mentality of many parents. Psychology for Secondary School”
“When I first became an MP in 2006, I had pushed for paternity leave for six consecutive years of COS. So, I was delighted that we finally put this into law. I thank Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin for speaking on behalf of fathers. I must declare my interest. I have been on the board of the Centre for Fathering longer than I have been an MP. So, paternity leave is close to my heart. I know that the take-up rate for paternity leave in Singapore was 44% in 2015 and 38.5% in 2014. What do we make of this statistic? To me, the situation is akin to less than half of eligible mothers taking up their maternity leave benefits. My questions to the Minister are as follows. What was the take-up rate in 2016? What about for 2017 when Government-paid paternity leave was further extended to two weeks? Since the period of it taken by fathers is generally much shorter than those taken by mothers, why is the take-up rate of paternity leave still less than 50%? So, if we know the underlying causes for this low utilisation rate, how are we addressing them? Even if some dads and mums were to feel that the two-week leave is not much in the grand scheme of things, the fact that so few take it up should lead us to relook this policy. Sir, in a way, it is the role of the Government to support and not dictate the role of fathers. So, I do not want to force paternity leave down the throats of families which do not want to take it. However, if the obstacle is something else, something that we can address as a matter of policy, then I think we are in a position and we ought to fix it. Affordable and Quality Preschools”
“So, how can our Public Service continue to evolve so that we deliver the best services we can to our citizens, and that our public officers can remain effective in their roles? Finally, my heart also goes out to all our civil servants. Their work gets harder each year with rising expectations from the public. A danger is that we will take refuge behind increasing rules and regulations so as to deal with complexity, but to disregard these in the pursuit of short term "customer satisfaction" as online mass agitation becomes ever louder and pervasive. Even as we find ways to increase the productivity and responsiveness of our officers, we must also enable them with skill and discretion, to say no to unreasonable requests. Improvements to the Public Service”
“The Public Service may not be the first that comes to mind to be associated with the words "speed" and "innovation", but citizens' demand for greater speed, effectiveness and transparency in public service delivery is increasingly acute. At times, I feel the role of the Public Service has become that of a marketer – successfully meeting consumer expectations – no longer one-way, top-down, nor linear. At the same time, we ought to bear in mind that these are our fellow citizens and not consumers. This is not a one-shot game where we carry out a transaction, make them happy and not worry about their long-term interests or their relationship with us as a community. Remembering that the Public Service builds public value, and that we share a common interest with all Singaporeans, we need to care for them and not treat them as in a transactional relationship. We need to redesign our service and map the citizen journey around key values which we all share, not just the pursuit of bureaucratic goals and departmental interests, but also, not populist demands or individual outcry. We need to strike the right balance. In finding this balance, we must ask ourselves audibly from time to time, in our bid to be citizen-centric, are we stymied by bureaucracy or a lack of incentives from the service to innovate or being too quick to penalise risk-taking? Likewise, the way we serve citizens will also need to change to keep up with the times, as well as our changing demographics. For one, our senior citizens might not be as savvy as our digital natives. But we must cater to all segments of society and continue to deliver to everyone the services they need in ways most natural to them.”
“Herman Daly wrote that there should be a moral limit to growth. So too, should there be a moral limit to the consumptive nature of man. In the 52 years since the founding of Singapore, our socialism has evolved, with our welfare net cast a lot wider and deeper than before. This is as it should be, as our resources and wealth have grown over time. At the same time, we must recognise that the NIRC is already called into service to a very large extent. In this, we ought to be more generous to men like Peter and find ever more ways in the name of equality and justice to bring him and his family along with us and ensure his two boys fight for a land they believe in. If we do, indeed, collectively care for his family, all for one, and value the contributions that they have contributed to this country; then, in return, they will feel that they are Singaporean and work for our collective future. Sir, I support Budget 2018. 3.02 pm”
“He also enjoys a few other benefits under the MOE financial assistance scheme ─ free text books, a waiver for fees and 50% subsidies for buses. He is very appreciative and grateful for all these help from the Government. This year, however, he has to pay $166.50 a month, and he has lost all the other benefits. Why? Because he earned $75 dollars a month too much last year due to overtime pay. The means test is at $675 per capita a month ─ Peter came in at $750 a month. He won but he also lost. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a man who has a maid or a car. This is a man who has bought health insurance for both his wife and his sons. In fact, he has planned carefully so that when he is 65, he can count on an endowment policy maturing. Peter ha,s in a way, planned, has prospered slowly and carefully. But he has also laboured under some rules that weigh a bit more heavily on him. He pays more in interest than his rich neighbour – we can change this. He loses benefits by a whisker of overtime pay – we can change this, too. This requires a new way, possibly a whole-of-Government approach to dealing with such specific instances. There is much that remains to be done in Singapore to make our society more equal. Our simple socialism demands that we make difficult choices. We must recognise that even relatively well-off people can have a legitimate experience of relative deprivation, when compared to the very wealthy. At the same time, we must see the need to allocate resources more urgently to men like Peter. It is only when we do not have enough to cater to men like Peter that I feel we should consider raising the percentage – not as a means of populist hot air balloon for everyone who demands a specious equality with their neighbour.”
“Peter has never taken a loan from HDB but our current rules are such that if you have taken a housing loan from a bank, you will not be allowed to refinance your flat with a housing loan from HDB. While I understand the need for some of our policies to follow the principles of efficiency of the market, our commitment to equality demands that we change this rule to bring about greater equality. The financial institution is a commercial profit-making entity, but I think HDB can perhaps take a different goal as its guiding objective. I also understand that one cannot pick and choose; that if you enjoy low interest when the market is flushed with capital, you cannot decline when the rate is hiked. The choice is between stability and perhaps a slightly higher rate with HDB and the ups and downs of the private market. Or is it? There is an easy way to break this false choice. We could, for example, allow a means-tested way to facilitate the shift of private loans back to HDB, especially when their interest rates are so high above HDB rates. To do so does not require us to incur more expenditure ─ it merely shifts the interest profits from the bank and puts half of this in Peter’s pocket and, the other half, in a sense, in the Government. This, of course, may over simplify the process, and I do oversimplify the process. Of course, this shifting of loans will mean messier policy implementation. I merely sound this out as a possibility for the Ministers here to consider. It is something that will be of great help to some lower-income families, like Peter, struggling to pay the monthly loans they had taken with commercial financial institutions. Second, Peter usually pays $40 a month for his boy's school bus.”
“And this means that we need to put flesh on what it means to have a collective destiny. This means we need to address the challenges of poverty, the lack of opportunity; we need to compensate for the poor luck that fate might have dealt on any Singaporean – whether an illness or an abusive spouse, or even with an addiction to gambling. As a society, we help those who are most vulnerable. It may be true that Singapore as a whole is so affluent that a family with a five-figure income may still feel deprived and feel entitled to even more subsidies. Our simple socialism, however, requires us to address not just felt deprivation relative to others, but real social needs. Let me tell you a story about a friend of mine, Peter. He is 52 years old and earns less than $2,700 a month. He has two boys: one in Primary school and the other a teenage – in Secondary school. His wife does not work. He has an HDB flat, just $60,000 shy of full payment. But he has to pay the financial institution 4% in finance costs for his loan. This is very high, because the current housing loan interest is around 2%. He went to all the major banks to try and refinance but there were no takers because his is a 2-room flat and the amount is less than $100,000. Peter had originally taken this private loan over an HDB loan because, at that point in time, the starting interest rate offered by the financial institution was 1.17% and the housing agent then had told him that it was a better deal. Of course, over time, the interest rate went up. Incidentally, I should add here that although I would consider Peter a savvy man about finance, it is well-known that the cognitive tax on the lower-income is higher. When Peter tried to refinance with HDB, unfortunately it was not approved.”
“My views and questions to our Finance Minister are as follows. Is this sustainable? What if the investment climate takes a turn for the worse? Would we be able to continue to finance or do we need to draw down on some of our welfare programmes? And is it fair to deprive future generations of the wealth that they would have enjoyed had we allowed the interest to compound? Since the 2008 amendment to our Constitution, we have taken a less conservative approach to the use of the income from our reserves. We have, since then, seen about 11 instances where the percentage of NIRC to be used has come up in Parliamentary debates. Members of Parliament from either side of the House have called for this percentage to be increased. Such an argument is, in a way, understandable because it is an easy and popular course of action. Why keep saving? Why not start spending? I think our socialism commits us to raising the percentage at some point but we do not know when or by how much. That is to say, it does not commit us to holding steadfast to a certain percentage, only to a certain way of spending. Which brings me to the second characteristic of our simple socialism – the striving towards a more equal society. I have spoken before about how complete equality is an impossibility because human beings are not widgets and we are irreducible into one another. What we can do, however, is to strive towards equality in basic human experiences – a safe home, a good and meaningful job, a chance for our children to prosper and find their purpose in life; to value each and every one of our Singaporeans and ensure that, for generations to come, they are able to build better lives in this garden city we call home.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Budget 2018. With the recent spike in en bloc activity and the general meteoric rise in asking prices of properties, what is the simplest way to make sure that such gains go towards the majority of Singaporeans, rather than the rich who buy and sell property? How do we ensure that we are able to stretch the value of every Budget dollar, every tax dollar, for all Singaporeans to lead better lives? The stamp duty is a progressive, simple tax which allows the Government to reap about $400 million in tax revenues is just one such example. This is the sort of simple socialism which has informed Singapore policymaking since our Independence and still does much of the heavy lifting in the redistribution of wealth today. Our socialism is captured by one simple phrase ─ that all of us work together for the well-being of that individual Singaporean who needs help. There are two elements which I would like to speak on today that relates to this year’s Budget ─ the use of NIRC and the need for greater equality in Singapore today. The heavy redistribution that our socialism demands takes place today, in the main, within one generation, that is, the rich of today are taxed to help the poor of today. There is also a sense in which the rich of today are taxed to help the poor of yesterday, that is, those a generation or two earlier than them. But by and large, our socialism does not leap over time. We make each generation pay its own way, as far as possible. This is the first characteristic of Singapore's socialism and that is why we resist the populist call to spend more of our NIRC. Since 2008, we have seen an increasing reliance on the NIRC. This is, as we all now know, our number one source and contributor to our revenue base.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. As the one who, together with the Work Group, led the changes to the last amendment to this Bill, I am heartened to see that the conciliation rate has increased significantly. What I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is whether, given that these are encouraging results and, indeed, we want more conciliations rather than going through the Tribunal per se, that more efforts, more focus, even more attention and more publicity be given. We do know that there are strains for many families in this day and age, and every family that we can help, first publicise this avenue and how conciliations can result in success. I will urge the Ministry to consider putting more efforts into this. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we will certainly take in Mr Seah's suggestion.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I am very heartened by the Ministry's views. I just have two supplementary questions. First, building on what the Minister has said that the Police and the Ministry will take a closer look at these sites, I hope that this can be done very proactively and decisively, when it is very clear that what the Ministry is advocating is not adhered to. My second question is a broader question, which is how do we balance the need between freedom of young adults to do as they wish, whilst curbing the platforms of these activities which are not aligned to our social norms.”
“He said that making it clear that the regime covers news aggregators, social media platforms that provide newsfeeds and other similar content hosts or sources of news will have the effect of ensuring compliance with combating deliberate online falsehoods and concomitant amendments to the regulations to include specific conditions for operation. His question, I guess, would be: do we really need a new piece of legislation? I think the Select Committee should look into this question very carefully. What are the benefits of legislation on this particular point? And if there is going to be legislation, will there be aspects of that legislation which are not just hardcoding new crimes but is giving support to vulnerable and the youth to raise awareness against fake news? Finally, Sir, it is important to start with more transparency between the Internet platforms and the public, because we do not even understand often, how they are moderating content, and how their algorithms are bring used, or showing up on people's newsfeeds. The question, therefore, for the Select Committee is: is technological design currently being harnessed to both promote more credible content or present content in a way that fosters consumer scepticism and critical analysis? If not, something needs to change. Sir, Mr Seah, before me, said compellingly that perhaps, we are approaching "winter". And this "winter", I am not talking about seasons, but of course, "winter" from the Game of Thrones; that "winter is coming". But I think what we should do is to say, "Well, if there is winter is coming, how do we insulate ourselves, and get the thickest coats and the best protection from this winter?" Because usage of the Internet is not going to stop, it is only going to increase. 4.48 pm”
“These networks can be state-driven, such as the local Government website "Factually", which is set up in the UK, which is a fact-checking website set up by the British parliament as well as another website in the US set up for the same purpose. Perhaps we could look at having a repository of information that is truthful when fake news is actually propagated on a wide scale. Finally, Sir, we should look to involve major Internet platforms and ICT providers. Major Internet platforms should support the research and development of appropriate technological solutions to disinformation and propaganda which users may apply on a voluntary basis. They should cooperate with initiatives that offer fact-checking services to users and review their advertising models to ensure that they do not adversely impact diversity of opinions that users can hold. It is important not to put the entire burden of policing on these platforms on the people, on the users who are using them. As one example, I look to a colleague at SMU, Prof Warren Chik, who has come out to say and written in the Law Gazette that it may be appropriate not always to have new legislation. So, yes, have some soft laws, have guidelines, have best practices but should we go straight into legislation? Prof Chik also says that it would be important to clarify with the relevant Internet intermediaries hosting or providing access to information to come under the ambit of existing regulations overseen by the IMDA.”
“People are upset, but how far is that damage? So, I would not look at that particular example as something that we should come up with a very strong enforcement measure against. How much of this is fake news and what is the damage of that fake news, is also something we should look at. There is a need to appreciate the difference in the way people of different ages, social backgrounds and genders use and respond to fake news. Some groups, Sir, are more vulnerable than others. Enhancing digital literacy amongst vulnerable segments of society should also be part of the solution, namely the elderly and the youth who are given false information may benefit from the truth. Outreach to the elderly could be done through community ambassadors and role models who vet these WhatsApp messages that are sent that could alarm them. Online deliberate falsehoods, Sir, in my opinion are a poison. The same networks that false news has benefited from could also be applied as an antidote to this poison. A network, Sir, of fact-checkers, as many of us have spoken about, could be set up. Fact-checkers, who are perhaps journalists, university students, scholars to look into information before it is widely disseminated or to constantly correct misinformation as it happens. Campaigns should be launched to raise awareness on the scourge of misinformation and to equip these fact-checkers with the tools needed to combat falsehoods. Media outlets should consider including critical coverage of disinformation just to explain that this is not the case and to set the record straight.”
“Pre-emptive measures, which is what the Select Committee would be thinking about, should be the main focus of legal solutions that we are putting together, as false information and fake news can inflict lasting damage long after it has been disseminated, even if this news is subsequently disproved. Where damage or harm is caused, appropriate remedies are currently available, as some Members have spoken about in the Defamation Act, the Sedition Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and various steep fines that the IMDA can impose. Beyond what currently exists, the Select Committee should be thinking about what is necessary to be part of the arsenal that is currently not there but that should be there because it is necessary to be there. Third, how do we equipping Internet users, regular Singaporeans to be that first line of defence? According to a research paper by IT security company Trend Micro in May last year, Trend Micro said this "In a post-truth era, news is easy to manufacture but challenging to verify, it’s essentially up to the users to better discern the veracity of the stories they read and prevent fake news from further proliferating". I would therefore agree with the Members who have spoken before me to talk about the importance of discerning truth from fake news. It is far more difficult than you would think. As a very simple example, those of us who follow football can understand that if you have a WhatsApp chat group, there is information on your sports teams, on the players that you support and what you think should be changed. Should the managers be doing something different, should a new player be acquired and very often fake news is actually propagated on these WhatsApp chat groups. Two points come up. What happens because of this?”
“The first, obviously, would be whether there or not is veracity, or facticity in their view; and secondly, the intention behind the news, the degree to which the author of fake news intends to deceive. The most recent understandings of fake news or online falsehoods focus on pieces of news that are low in veracity and high in the intention to mislead. This would be the most dangerous elements of fake news for online falsehoods. When looking at this definition, it is important also to see what it would exclude. So, as an example, fictitious news stories with a vague plausibility but which are aimed at humour should be excluded if they are deliberately satirical and that they caveat that that is their purpose. It is different. If there is innocent, inadvertent inaccuracies or mistakes, as some have spoken about earlier, that should be excluded. And finally, impassioned opinion or commentary that is based on facts, even if people would disagree with these facts, that should be excluded. Ultimately, it is important for the Select Committee to give us a parameter of what is fake news that we would be looking at. Secondly, looking at the regulatory tool box that is currently available for Government, our Government agencies indeed hold significant power and sometimes could impose major sanctions if they choose to do so in relation to data authenticity, privacy, security and they must always be subject to certain constraints in the public interest. The Select Committee should outline and recommend how a Smart Nation in the 21st century should responsibly enforce existing norms. There is a considerable range in this tool box, which regulators have. It ranges from inspection, support, advice and it can be backed by criminal, civil and reputational sanctions.”