Syed Harun Alhabsyi
Singapore
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question as well as his deep concern over individuals who may have difficulty completing the SSG courses. Indeed, even after committing to the course, some individuals do have challenges managing the training load, juggling work or study, health complications as well as unforeseen commitments.”
“In 2025, more than 90% of learners completed their SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) courses. SSG does not process course fee waiver requests for learners who fail to complete their courses. Such waivers are subject to the contractual agreement between learners and training providers.”
“I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I do not have the full number, the extent of the collective amount as asked by Mr Pritam Singh. But I can give him some indication in terms of what are the current numbers that we are looking at for specific agencies.”
“I would like to reiterate again to the Member that the nature of the fees that were charged previously was on account of the service that was rendered by the four agencies. The fees were openly prescribed to the extent to where the services were required by Singaporeans, as well as consumers.”
“Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 20 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.”
“Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 2 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.”
The complete record
Every one of 244 lines we hold for Syed Harun Alhabsyi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“We will still move with strength and at a keen cadence for our needs and for our future. Others will know us as a society that is fiercely competitive but always with empathy and concern for the people who walk alongside and especially, towards those of less privilege. "We first" speaks of us a society that does not trample on others for our own gain, that we will not be a racehorse with blinkers and leave others in the dust in order to win at all costs. If we must succeed, we only do so with dignity and justice on our side. In schools, we must continue to emphasise values of respect, of responsibility, of integrity, care and harmony over grades. That it is more dignified to lose in fair play than to win dishonourably. In the workplace, we must be able to recognise and have a care that some of our colleagues have unique challenges and circumstances, whether in terms of mobility, mental well-being or caregiving demands. That at work, a genuine concern for others percolates rather than to consider these traits as blameworthy on the basis of output alone. In our neighbourhoods, that we exercise some understanding and flexibility with one another, as well as a give and take in our common spaces. That, in our own actions, what we say and how we go about our day to day, we maintain a care and awareness of how others may be impacted by our own actions. That when we take the lift and we interface with our neighbours, a good morning greeting or a "how are you" helps break the ice, brings warmth to another and nurtures friendships in our midst. And certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker, the shine of our care for situations and people, and the values driven by our ethos of "we first" knows no boundary or border.”
“When we juxtapose that same mindset to a national level and others recognise that Singapore is a country that is willing to work with others and achieve collective outcomes and that it is in our psyche and persona as a nation to see past ourselves and bring goodness and benefit to the world, Singapore then becomes a trusted partner and facilitator in the room. As a country, we never start with a hard-nosed view to negotiations, nor do we willy-nilly or haphazardly take positions. Taking a "we first" view, we start from the considered and deliberate approach to, first, seeking to understand the different starting positions and others can appreciate that we have a reasonable willingness to negotiate and achieve mutual benefit, so long as it is fair and just. From dealings in foreign affairs, to trade and industry, to policy positions in the international stage and fora, this ethos of "we first" will carry us through as a nation, even in the most delicate of dealings and in the most turbulent of disagreements of the world. "We first" puts forth Singapore as a consistent, trusted, amiable and, dare I say, foremost partner and colleague of the international arena, whether in platforms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or United Nations, or even as a diplomatic arbiter towards consensus and peace between the larger powers of the world. Beyond domestic considerations, I argue that the ethos of "we first" keeps Singapore squarely competitive, trusted and relevant in the world as we observe and know it today. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, in embracing "we first", we will constantly be reminded to look to our right and to look to our left to ensure that no one is left behind. In this space, we nurture a caring and values-driven society.”
“If we teach our young early in our schools and encourage every Singaporean to really live by the ethos of "we first", and guide them early to be comfortable in working with others different from us to achieve collaborative outcomes, to have the natural willingness and adaptability to together negotiate difficult problems and complex situations, and to recognise the power in working as a team for the greater good, surely, this is a desired trait that works to our advantage as a people. Singaporeans are known as a competitive and hardworking lot, but through the spirit of "we first", if we are also known for our sense of community, our emotional intellect and our zeal to achieve fair consensus, the value we bring to any table becomes a potent force. Our value proposition, to the workplace, to prospective employers and to other companies navigating the emerging economic challenges of the day, will rise. Contrast this against the backdrop of societies today looking inwardly, polarising narratives online that centre around selfish and narrow ideals and a lack of willingness, or sometimes even ability to have deep, thoughtful conversations with nuance and to be comfortable in engaging complexity. If "we first" is personified in Singaporeans in finding solutions of tomorrow, we then become the natural team players, the future co-creators and the firm collaborators; the ones whom others can count on to look across the aisle to mediate, to discuss and to engage with comfortably. This tells others that Singaporeans make for excellent hires locally and abroad, and that our companies make for trusted and reliable partners in any market for any opportunity.”
“Each spice and ingredient in the recipe of social cohesion is unique and stands on its own different identity. We can taste each and every one of them in the final brew. No one tells us how to do our recipe because it is our kitchen. Through "we first", we allow for a common space to hold us together across differences, whether by language, race, religion or age, to find the recipe for us and our Singapore society. We must be broad-based in our approaches, actively reach out to include everyone in our midst and work hard to keep our society close. A little tension and some discomfort can be expected. Where there are emerging weak points to the social equilibrium over time, our natural response must be to honestly examine the issue at hand, to challenge prevailing assumptions and to ask ourselves if the policy remains relevant and what it is about this current recipe that needs tweaking moving forward. It does not mean we must agree all the time, but when we must disagree, respectful we remain in our exchanges and with an expressed mutual desire for co-collaboration or solutions that benefit all and for the greater good. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must recognise that espousing "we first" offers each and every one of us a comparative advantage economically. I know it sounds like a stretched argument but let me explain.”
“To be clear, in "we first", it is never about a bargaining of our core identity as a people nor the erosion of our diversity, but rather about embracing the process of finding our many points of synergy as a people and nurturing our harmony in concert with one another. In putting forward the "we" before "me", we harness the scale and potential capital of the collective and maximise its multiplier effect into our equation of Singapore society. First, as alluded to by other hon Members prior, social cohesion is a primary outcome we want to drive in putting the "we" before "me". I have argued before in this House that in wanting to strengthen social cohesion, we must let it be experienced in our everyday and in our common spaces, in our schools, in our neighbourhoods, in our residential estates, in our work and in our play. We must enable this by design, in our young through our education curriculum, in our neighbourhoods through how we plan for our public estates and in the gamut of programmes in our workplaces and in our community. We must allow for the social interaction across differences to always occur and encourage different opportunities to meet, interface and most importantly, mix. Like the proverbial melting pot holding the recipe of a brew, Mr Deputy Speaker, it requires a variety of different spices and ingredients to hold, at a constant stir, and it takes a while, for a blended fragrance to emerge. Stop too early, it never quite works out. Too few of any one particular ingredient makes the attempt flat. Too long into the cooking or if we turn up the heat too soon or too late, the recipe eludes us. Change the pot and the climate for the ingredients, a new approach and recipe would be required.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In his address, the President spoke of nurturing our Singapore society to be a "we first" society. In his words, to put "we" before "me". I find this idea extremely profound. If "we first" is internalised as a core and innate value that all of us carry deeply as Singaporeans, if we teach "we first" early in our young and in our schools as part of their journey in education, as part of their core values and as part of our collective identity as Singaporeans, and if we echo and remind ourselves of the resonance of "we first" in all that we do, it would be a most powerful enabler for Singapore society on several fronts. I will elaborate on these in my speech. First, through "we first", our social cohesion would strengthen and bolster our unity as a people. Second, I would argue that "we first" would make our economic competitiveness as a people and nation more potent. And third, a lived ethos of "we first" would be the cornerstone of the caring and values-driven society. "We first", Mr Deputy Speaker, suggests a natural proclivity to look beyond ourselves for the collective good, an acknowledgement to give and take where it is needed and when it is appropriate and fair, a social milieu that must necessarily be rooted in trust and reciprocity, and a promotion of a shared sense of belonging, togetherness, safety and a common purpose. It informs us that to achieve the optimised collective potential of our society, to realise the full power of a whole that is far greater than the sum of all our parts, sometimes, the unitary parts may require some sub-optimisation and compromise.”
“It functions as yet another multi-layered social scaffold: one, for our families to remain intact and tightly knit against the threat of social challenges and divorce rates; two, to further impart our traditions, our cultures and our heritage to our young alongside their lived experience of modernity and technology; and three, to nourish genuine relationships and close kinships in our families as part of a building of cohesive society and a united nation. I do hope these are areas that the Government will look into as we work towards strengthening our families, our marriages and our journeys in parenthood. Ultimately, it is with a hope that Singapore remains safe and conducive for our children and their own families to grow and benefit in turn. Notwithstanding my comments, I rise in full of support of this Motion in its original form.”
“From a policy perspective, it would always be easier to calibrate support at the unitary level of a family; the father, the mother and their children. While families can be nudged and encouraged from within, for example, through Baby Bonuses and better shared paternity and maternity packages, I wish we could do more to buttress nuclear families from outside-in, by strengthening grandparenting as well as the concept of kinship arising from the extended family, such that these too can benefit from the Government's policy support. The age-old saying goes, Mr Deputy Speaker: "it takes a village to raise a child". To some extent, the part of a kampung or village that we have not been able to replace and replicate, as effectively through our current housing and policy strategies, is this concept of extended family and kinship. What I mean is the support and interwoven structures and bonds that a nuclear family used to have vis-à-vis the extended family, such as grandparents, uncles and aunts who used to exist in a very close proximity and who were within reach previously. This is something I think is worth looking into as a policy, to establish levers where help outside the nuclear family, but within the extended family, can be encouraged, reinforced and nudged to be more forthcoming. In fact, I argue that this is not merely an instrument of practical caregiving support when both parents are at work.”
“Single-parent families could occur in cases of marital separation and discord, as well as through grief and loss of a partner. It can be challenging and lonely for a single parent to manage the multiplicity of challenges, which may bear on his or her shoulders alone. If there is grief over the passing of partner, young children in tow, coupled with the need to continue working and feed the family in spite of a turbulent emotional state of affairs, this becomes even more complex and challenging to handle. Blended families are also unique in their own way. However, what blended families suggest is that, perhaps, despite initial challenges or difficulties from the first marriage, both parents show a willingness to look past a painful period in their lives, still with every hope and desire to nurture another relationship forward. It suggests that the institution of family remains a key part of their lives despite what may have happened. While we structure most of our policy towards raising and strengthening a family unit in the traditional sense, we should recognise there would be very unique challenges in single-parent or blended settings that need support and should be helped with the same, if not more, rigour. Children remain the most vulnerable in these families and it is something that we must pay attention to. Where there is a gap in fulfilling the policy intent to support such families, which are distinct and different in the traditional sense, we must be flexible enough to accommodate up to the last mile for them, especially in their time of need. My second hope is that the Government also strengthens familial support structures beyond the initial nuclear family.”
“On divorce, MSF's research on Inter-generational Effects of Divorce on Children in Singapore, published in 2020, shows a clear correlation that, compared to children whose parents remained married, those whose parents were divorced, were less likely to obtain a university degree, earned less and had lower CPF balances, were less likely to get married themselves and were themselves more likely to undergo divorce. It was clear from the report that there is a long tail in terms of the impact of broken families on children and young people, including their eventual likelihood of maintaining stability in their own lives as well as in their own future marriages and relationships. The inter-generationality of the impact in broken families is clear and we need to be resolute to break the cycle, difficult as it may be. Of course, the starting point should always be to reinforce systemic support for an intact family and buttress families for success. However, it should not be that in the case where families break down in the first instance, that we have fewer levers to recalibrate our efforts to help these families. We should spare no effort for the single parents, their children and their extended family to get back on their feet, to come together as any other family would and to be supported as part of our society. My first hope is that the Government continually reviews and updates its policies to support specifically single-parent families, blended or step-families, as well as children in such families. I refer to blended families as those that comprise a couple, any children that they have together, as well as any children from their previous relationships as part of the current family unit.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the initiative by hon Members Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Ms Hany Soh in tabling this Motion. It is of utmost importance that we continue to review and regularly update our policies to better support families, marriage and the parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans wholeheartedly. The family is a fundamental unit of society. Where the family is functioning well, it is an anchor point from which we begin our lives, a home base from which we start exploring the world beyond and in times of need and crisis, a place of safety where most of us return to. The family is a source of motivation and strength, a place where we first learn to form our social bonds and shape our identity. The family is where values, behaviours and character are shaped; where discipline, resilience and morality are nurtured; and where traditions, cultures and heritage are preserved. A stable family unit contributes directly to a functional and flourishing society. If we fail at the first unitary building block of society, it will be incredibly challenging, in fact, impossible, for us to do well as a society and as a nation. We all hope for families to remain intact at the outset, that their children eventually do well in school, mature emotionally and socially, and grow into good persons of character and fulfil their parental aspirations. We also hope that familial relationships remain firmly intact throughout their lives. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, the truth is families can fail, marriages can be upended and parenthood aspirations can go awry, the effects of which can be damaging for both partners and their children.”
“I urge all Members of the House to consider how we form our biases today and where our blind spots could be in hope that we could work together towards eradicating all manner of discrimination, whether they be in the corridors of our Housing and Development Board flats and our homes, at work in our offices, among students in our classrooms or just in our everyday conversations. [Applause.]”
“If there is a lack, I think it is important to study this and to find ways on how we can encourage more broad-based participation from minorities or groups at the margins so that there is access to a diversity of views for decisions taken in Public Service. When hiring and representation is broad-based and inclusive, then there is also opportunity for greater diversity in leadership to emerge from the Public Service. Ultimately, this benefits Singapore as a whole. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, we are not immune to bias and prejudice. We are products of different experiences and surely, we want to be able to celebrate our own unique identities and cultural backgrounds. However, it should not be that we ever allow ourselves to divide as a result of that difference. We should not allow our blind spots and stereotypes to propagate discriminatory practices due to our ignorance of the other. We may prefer sameness and familiarity in our comfort zones, but we must also recognise that there is strength in diversity and a richness to that. Most paintings, Mr Speaker, are beautiful because there is much diversity and a celebration in the conglomerate of colours that make up the painting. Even in monochrome colours, a skilled artist plays with a variety of tones and textures. It takes skill, a lot of work and training to flow and blend the different parts of a painting to achieve the beautiful end result. If paintings were all made with a very broad stroke of one colour, little tone and no texture, and we make a harsh assumption that all other forms did not, could not or must not fit into the painting, we allow discrimination to take hold and prevent us from adding colour to our lives and from making it more beautiful and enriching for ourselves and for the people around us.”
“I am sure the examples I share will require more study but in the spirit of wanting to aspire to remove discrimination entirely, I think the examples that follow are worth some thought. First, imagine how the worldview of a young student can be shaped and informed, for the better, in my opinion, if inclusive hiring practices and accessibility support is available in our schools such that it allows even for a wheelchair-bound principal or teacher to educate comfortably in our classrooms? Or how stereotypes are challenged when a teacher from a minority community teaches the second language of the majority in Mandarin, or vice versa? Second, if we consider that the Government has shifted to be more inclusive now in all of its functions, could it potentially mean that National Service, as an example, would be possible for a male amputee or one with a disability but who is otherwise well, functional and able to serve the country in a non-combat role? I would venture that this is not a far-fetched idea where remote technology, cybersecurity and digital systems form a strong part of our defence and security strategy, and not all tasks require the full extent of physical ability. If this were possible, would that not signal to others about our seriousness to be a cohesive and inclusive society and how important the institution of National Service is for us as a symbol of universality and collective unity as a people? Third and finally, it bears considering how widely representative and diverse the leadership at all levels of our Public Service is today. Is there a lack of representation in certain sectors and can we do better?”
“In the last Sitting, we discussed workplace fairness; and in this Parliamentary Sitting, we also discuss issues related to racial harmony and how we will not allow nor tolerate discriminatory behaviours or actions of hatred and ill will on the basis of race, to take root in our society. We also have parallel laws for religious harmony today. Beyond the law, perhaps, it would be helpful to also look at other sectoral practices with potential smirks of discriminatory practice as well. For example, how can we better improve the state of insurance policies for individuals who are disabled or inflicted with mental health conditions? In relation to refusal, loading and exclusionary criteria for insurance plans, are individuals with specific disability and mental health conditions assessed fairly or are there instances where decisions are taken too conservatively such that insurance coverage is unfairly onerous or even impossible? It needs to be the case that if we are serious about eroding discriminatory practices, we should continue to review and be ever circumspect about our legislative positions and policy frameworks to encourage systemic parity and fair access, especially for marginalised groups. My fifth and final point, Mr Speaker, is a call for the Government, being the largest employer in Singapore today and one that permeates influence in a variety of sectors relating to society, to take the lead in challenging discriminatory narratives and for itself to shape positive ones proactively, simply because it has the remit, scale and opportunity to do so. It has been the case that the Government has been forthcoming towards greater representation of minority communities and marginalised groups, but I think we can do more.”
“Third, we should strive for more common spaces that allow broad-based interactions and reduce opportunity for marginalisation of any particular group. Could we encourage more sports and common activities where disability matters less or does not matter at all to the outcome of the activity? If I had a go at e-sports or a game of chess with my hon friend, we would see ourselves as equal in the game. In fact, I may not stand a chance. It is the case that for sports, specifically, the Paralympics, as a movement, has been an enabler for inclusivity and participation for those with specific impairments. However, I think we could do more to promote activities where everyone has an equal and good chance at enjoying and succeeding in that activity without concern of a handicap or a differential ability. It gives us room and space to also have conversations and experience one another as equals. This is something I think we can do better to explore. Additionally, for traditional and cultural-based events, the practical and honest truth is that, more often than not, it is championed by participants of the same ethnic or cultural community. By an overwhelming majority, it is likely that in activities, such as the Chinese Orchestra, Silat, Sepak Takraw or Indian dance, it is participated by specific groups of individuals. So, could we encourage more cross-cultural participation in our schools or community activities and challenge the urge to silo these activities within a narrow band of participation? Is there any way to better foster diversity in participation and encourage a wider inclusion for such activities? Fourth, beyond the workplace, it is important that we strengthen efforts to address any gaps in our legislature and policies.”
“This is because role models are powerful and important to inspire others and to open up pathways to help people believe that they too can do it. When one starts from a position of being discriminated against and representation from that particular group is limited at the onset, the tide can only turn when we facilitate examples of success and affirm our stand as a society, through lived examples and stories, that discrimination is not okay. In this regard, it does two things. First, it gives an example and confidence to those at the margins and from minorities that they too can succeed. Whether we would like to admit it or not, what discrimination does is that, over time, it suppresses and pigeonholes groups to a diminished role rather than allow them to flourish and fulfil their real and true potential. Stories can be powerful in breaking that mindset, especially among those who hesitate not for their lack of ability, but for a lack of self-esteem and confidence in themselves. Second, when we tell enough of such stories of success, it reminds the remaining majority to confront any long-held discriminatory biases that do not hold true. For example, in the area of disabilities, when we hear of the incredible stories and achievements of those awarded the Goh Chok Tong Enable Awards over the years, one cannot help but be inspired by what these individuals have achieved in spite of their life challenges. Among the prior recipients are an architect with projects not just in Singapore but in China, India and the Middle East, a chef at a Michelin star restaurant and a banker, all of whom struggle with some form of disability but have achieved much the same, if not more, than many of us.”
“Not at a cursory hi-bye level, but really to get past any initial awkwardness and have a meaningful conversation and friendship at depth, to learn more about his view of the world from the chair that he sits and appreciate better the genuine struggles that I may have taken for granted. My view is that if more of our students have the opportunity for such exchanges with people who are different from their own lived experiences, their ability to challenge their own stereotypes will change more easily and society will be better for it in time. Among others, this could be related to disability, mental health, racial or religious identity, language, nationality or different socio-economic status. On this note, I also wonder if there is scope to improve the opportunity for growth and leadership for minorities and the disabled in our schools. How many head prefects have there been in our schools where it came from someone who was a minority or disabled? Can one imagine a student in a wheelchair, notwithstanding his or her physical limitations, but with an inspiring leadership ability to also be the class chairman? If there was a younger version of Singapore's most decorated Paralympian and former Nominated Member of Parliament, Ms Yip Pin Xiu, could or would she be considered as her school's swim captain or part of the leadership committee of her co-curricular activity? Second, we can and must do better in telling more stories of success and challenge more robustly discriminatory narratives. We must empower minorities and marginalised groups through mentorship and guide them to seize readily available opportunities. We should make attempt to amplify their success stories to challenge any negative stereotypes that present a false view of their actual potential and ability.”
“In fact, we do want to celebrate our differences; our respective traditions, our heritage and cultures; they mean a lot to us. We also want to harmonise our rich diversity and we want to draw collective strength from all backgrounds, perspectives and ideas. With these differences, however, there will be some tension and propensity to recognise that we are not the same, that we, too, are filled with our own biases and sometimes, prejudice can rear its ugly head. Certainly, discrimination is not something we can sweep under the carpet nor pretend that it is not there. As a society, I think we do reasonably in balancing this, compared to many other parts of the world that is filled with much polarity and prejudice today. It remains a work in progress and something we certainly cannot take for granted or leave to chance. I offer five ways for us to consider in addressing discrimination as part of our forward-looking aspiration as a young nation that espouses justice and equality as deep rooted values in our national pledge, no less. First, it is important that our work against discrimination starts young and in our schools. Our efforts to expose our young to the varied life experiences of others, whether they be of individuals with disability or special needs, of different races, religions and cultures, or of different age groups and caregiving roles must start in school. I now wish that when I was in school, I had met someone like my learned and hon friend, and fellow Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr Ong Hua Han, earlier.”
“Firstly, the work towards addressing discrimination cannot possibly be said to start and end only at the workplace. Often, the root of any discriminatory view would have been seeded much earlier in a person. It arises from a broad-based societal view that informs how we see our neighbours, our classmates, our colleagues and people who are different from us. Secondly, characteristics of potential discrimination are not necessarily exhaustive to the 11 that are listed in the Bill. Though the characteristics are already broadly scoped and covers most groups, it is more important that we, as a society, develop a genuine willingness to appreciate diversity of individuals in our midst and possess a readiness to see them for their strengths, rather than focus on the differences along the lines of the said characteristics. And thirdly, not all decisions that go against a particular individual or a group are a function of discrimination and injustice. In the context of the workplace, it is necessarily a competitive hiring process and employers have to take a view that considers their business needs as well. Protected characteristics aside, really, the spirit of such decisions must be underpinned by fairness and transparency in the hiring process, benchmarked against ability and value proposition of the prospective employee. Similarly, in any society, especially one as diverse and multicultural as ours, I think it is important to acknowledge in this Adjournment Motion that not all decisions will always be in one's favour and where they are not, they are not necessarily a function of discrimination, per se. How then do we stem discrimination more effectively?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apologies for the delay. After a full day of discussing racial harmony and social cohesion, I think this Adjournment Motion topic on addressing discrimination does appear to parallel much of what we deliberated and segue quite nicely to the end of the Parliamentary day. Mr Speaker, when we speak of discrimination, it can stir unease and discomfort. It can be confronting to our own biases, shine light on our unconscious prejudices and it tends to be a topic that needs to be tread sensitively at times. Amidst the diversity of our own backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, upbringing and life experiences, all of us have blind spots and shortcomings relative to the view of others around us. On that basis, all of us also consider different positions because we are indeed varied and diverse ourselves. Sometimes, we converge in our viewpoints. At other times, we may disagree and vehemently so. However, we must continue to be active in reaching out to the others, especially if they are different, take effort to know them well and make a genuine attempt to build trust amidst our differences. Pandering to reductionist stereotypes, painting a group or community with a broad brush and dismissing negative experiences as an exception rather than a lived reality, can funnel us towards a worldview that is unjust, prejudicial and ignorant. We must protect our society against discrimination if we want to continue to be a society that is cohesive and one of high trust. Last month, we debated in this House on the Workplace Fairness Bill where we legislated against discrimination at the workplace through 11 protected characteristics. This is a step in the right direction, but the debate over the Bill also brought up a few key points.”
“In light of how clause 40 is worded, could the Ministry reassure the arts community and its enthusiasts, especially those in the visual, literary and performing art forms, that even on sensitive topics relating to race, where sometimes, there could be questions or challenges about racial stereotypes and identities, these would still be permitted with within the remit of artistic licence and what is considered reasonable. My view is that some latitude should be given for the relevant art forms to express views, to ask the hard questions, to challenge narratives and to inspire change. In fact, when done well and tastefully, society would be more cohesive, more thoughtful and more reflective in the longer term, even though it could stir uncomfortable emotions and disdain in the short term. Mr Speaker, my points notwithstanding, I rise in support of the Bill.”
“Would this be a rather wide and encompassing definition that needs better scoping and specificity for the purposes of this Bill, and instead of encouraging ground-up community efforts, could this instead raise concerns and prevent people from stepping forward to contribute more fervently towards building the social, economic, educational, linguistic and cultural interests of particular aspects of a race or community, which is really the rich diversity we want to preserve and encourage in Singapore, and also allow to flourish. Lastly, also echoing what some hon Members have mentioned earlier, in part six offences relating to race, under offence of inciting enmity against persons distinguished by race and so on, in clause 40, I wonder if this, in any way, could affect our arts community in their good work today. We agree, and I am sure with a resounding consensus in this House, that we are firmly and flatly against any form of intentional incitement of ill will and hostility across racial lines. This, I have also outlined, in rather unequivocal terms, in the Malay portion of my speech earlier. I appreciate, however, that the arts is and can be a powerful medium for expression of differing and diverse views, and sometimes emotive opinions, serving as a vehicle for social commentary, political critique, personal reflection and advocacy. Sometimes, the arts asks inconvenient questions, presses on hot button issues and could upset people.”
“May I clarify, specifically in the instance that a person is likely to commit or is attempting to commit the specific acts, could the Minister provide examples of when such a threshold is crossed and how this may differ from having an intent without any action alone? This is to reassure us that sufficient and reasonable basis for a Restraining Order is met before it is meted under these powers. Secondly, in Part 4, measures against foreign influence, under division two, designation of entities, clause 15(A), where the competent authority may designate an entity where the primary objects, purposes or activities include representing or promoting social, economic, political, educational, linguistic, cultural or other interests, or discussing any issue relating to any race in Singapore. Would this also possibly include well-meaning ground-up initiatives, registered community-based organisations or registered charities that seek to support specific racial groups as part of each community's efforts to also uplift their own? Would ethnic-based self-help groups, like the Chinese Development Assistance Council, Yayasan MENDAKI, Singapore Indian Development Association and the Eurasian Association also fall within this definition of such potential entities as per clause 15(A)?”
“In Singapore, as a young nation where many of our ancestors were early immigrants and traders, and where our family histories and ethnic traditions may still share intertwined aspects of history, culture and race from China, India and the Malay Archipelago, in these 60 years since Singapore's Independence, there are also many more unique features and local contexts that the people need to consider together. We must not allow any avenue and opportunity for extreme opinions, which can result in discrimination and racial provocations taking root and permeate our society. This does not mean that we should avoid celebrating our respective racial identities that are rich with diversity and history, or shy away from honest discussions about issues of importance to each race. For everything that is allowed to develop in our multiracial and multi-ethnic society, we will need to consider the local context, culture, etiquette, history, harmony and legislation. (In English): Mr Speaker, in English, please. I have a few clarifications in three broad parts for the Minister, as part of this proposed Bill. Firstly, in part three, restraining orders against racial content in clause eight, it is noted that the Minister may make a racial content Restraining Order against a person if the Minister is satisfied that several thresholds have been met in relation to an act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore, or that incites, instigates or encourages another person to commit such an act.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, racial harmony is the cornerstone of Singapore's social stability and prosperity. Although our hearts may differ, shaped by our respective cultural tapestries and ethnic traditions. As the Malay proverb goes, we all have black hair (birds of a feather). The peace of our nation and society is our responsibility and we must have the will and courage to reach across the divide, get to know each other better and forge a united vision to ensure the peace and progress of our nation. This Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill is important in preventing hostility and hatred from emerging between the different races. It also makes it an offence to incite and foment discord on the basis of race. This is an appropriate measure for our country in order to preserve racial harmony, social stability, a united people as well as national cohesion. It also creates a fair and just society that views everyone equally regardless of race and one that fosters inclusivity and accords respect and appreciation to all races. The importance of this Bill is also that it affirms measures that will prevent foreign influence and interference in local racial issues. It is important because Singapore, as an open economy, is also exposed to and not immune to, various external elements and influences. Moreover, with the influence of social media, this Bill needs to be holistic in order to curb news, narratives and perceptions that are false and dangerous, which can trigger misunderstanding, hatred and division between races.”
“If a person, notwithstanding his or her mental disorder, adopts a position that still resolves the "unreasonable interference" but does not wish to seek treatment, should that not be respected and be considered acceptable, even as we consider the challenging situations in the context of the proposed amendments? I do look forward to the responses from the Ministry.”
“I can understand and appreciate that the MTO is intended to close the loop and take a further preventive approach on the issue, in that a person who exhibits hoarding behaviours or other behaviours of neighbourly concerns on account of mental illness, needs to be treated and it will be better for him or her. I do not disagree on this premise. However – and I say this with much respect to the elected Parliamentarians here, the variety of challenges that their residents face and the various complaints that they regularly receive on the ground, in the context of a community dispute and before any crime is committed – I wonder if the inclusion of an MTO through this Bill stretches the argument past the need for public and social justice and encroaches into what could be well within a person's autonomy to decide on treatment for him or herself. There are indeed many people, Mdm Deputy Speaker, who have mental or physical illnesses, who choose not to be treated for their ailments for a variety of reasons. As a medical practitioner, it is something that I neither condone nor encourage, but I think we should be circumspect of the limits of intervention in the case of community disputes. If the central concern of dispute, which as articulated in the Act, is an "unreasonable interference" in relation to a neighbour of an individual, if it has been addressed and mitigated sufficiently, it should still remain within the autonomy of the individual whether to seek treatment for his or her condition. We can encourage, we can help the person see reason for treatment and we can facilitate such a possibility, but to make it legally mandatory and enforceable is something rather different in my view.”
“To my knowledge, and I stand advised, this is the first time we are introducing the construct of an MTO as part of an escalation pathway to community disputes, specifically and directly as part of the Act. The MTO has only previously been used under the auspices of sentencing after a crime has been committed, from which it was assessed that there was a strong contributory link between the criminal conduct and a person's mental illness. Hence, as part of the crime sentencing framework, the person is mandated to seek treatment under the Criminal Procedure Code, or CPC. Could the Minister share with us why the Ministry has opted for the inclusion of an MTO in this Act specifically, and how its application will be distinctive, or otherwise, from the MTO ordered under the CPC? If it is the case that the mentally disordered person is so unwell and clearly so requiring mental health treatment as well, can the intent of granting access to treatment for this person be circumscribed under the existing provisions of the Mental Healthcare and Treatment Act, for example? If it is the case that a person is so recalcitrant to the extent of egregious public nuisance or non-adherence to Court orders, even under the influence of mental illness, would that not then constitute as an offence that could be sentenced under community orders or MTO anyway, under the current CPC framework? And if it is the case that the CRO is already authorised, with or without consent, to remove items of public risk and concern, as proposed under the new section 11, is this not sufficient to address and then resolve the community dispute, rather than adding on a further amendment and order for the person to be sentenced to mandatory treatment?”
“Even as the Ministry proposes this Bill, it bears reminding that we must always consider that an underpinning premise of this Act is to ensure a reasonable and timely resolution of community disputes before they get worse, that this Bill is but one small part of our greater collective effort in fostering social cohesion and that we are resolute in wanting to protect what is reasonable, what is fair and just neighbourly conduct for our communities. I have queries and comments which I hope the Ministry would be able to clarify. Firstly, on the new section 11 on Order to Address Hoarding. Could the Minister clarify the progress and challenges of the inter-agency Hoarding Task Force and Hoarding Management Core Group thus far, and what lessons have been gleaned in the past? I gather there have been challenges in addressing the issue of hoarding in our estates, to the extent that such behaviours could present as physically dangerous to others, pose a fire hazard and confer public health or hygiene concerns. In enacting this proposed amendment to the Act, understanding the challenges on the ground will reassure the House that there is indeed sufficient need to grant powers to the assigned community relations officer to enter a place of residence, with or without consent, for the removal of hazardous hoarded items. This new section, in my view, presents as a shift towards greater intervention from the authorities against the backdrop of the individual's right to choose how they wish to upkeep and maintain their own home. Where it has been assessed that there are sufficient grounds to intervene, I am in support of this particular amendment. Secondly, on the new section 12A on the introduction of the MTO. I wish to register my concern over the introduction of this section.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon Ministers for taking their time to outline the rubric and framework of the proposed amendments with a strong preference for mediation rather than leaning too strongly on legislation. In discussing legislation to resolve community disputes, it does stir some unease in me but the reassurance from the Ministers is something I appreciate. On one hand, a structured legal framework for community dispute resolution is helpful. It ensures protection of individuals – in terms of their rights to a comfortable personal living space and to safety in their place of dwelling. It lends equitability in access to justice and also halts any potential escalation and protraction of neighbourly conflicts. However, on the other hand, we must be vigilant against being overly reliant on legislation as a tool of resolving community disputes and we continue to encourage social responsibility and good neighbourly behaviours. As mentioned by the hon Minister earlier is not a silver bullet. At its extreme, the hardened legislation potentially and paradoxically risks polarisation and adversarial relationships in our communities and our neighbourhoods. Inadvertently, if not handled or framed well, it could leave us with lesser room for flexibility, to give and take, to have informal dialogue as well as to partake in negotiation or mediation processes at the level of community.”
“However, I am also concerned about the cumulative impact of regulatory and legislative changes being done in relative quick succession and how they are affecting private medical practitioners of smaller and singular clinic entities disproportionately. It is notable that the number of private sector medical practitioners are not insignificant and based on the Singapore Medical Council's 2023 Annual Report, they make up about a third of all registered medical practitioners in Singapore, as of December 2023. The structure and relationship of private hospitals vis-a-vis the private medical practitioners, are more heterogeneous and not as singular and strongly rooted as those in the public hospitals and that could add further complexity to ground implementation of MediShield Life claims. For MediShield Life to be truly accessible and impactful to every Singaporean, as hoped and as intended by policy, a key enabler would be the medical practitioners themselves, who need to be supported well at the last mile in order to offer good custodianship of this scheme. I hope the Ministry will lend emphasis and greater support for this group as the proposed changes to the MediShield Life take root in the coming year. This also runs in parallel to the point made for patients at the last mile by the hon Member Ms Jessica Tan about considering MediShield Life changes in wider context and not in isolation. Mr Deputy Speaker, my comments notwithstanding, I rise in support of the Bill.”
“However, as we increasingly consider the shifting of care from inpatient settings to outpatient, to home and to community settings and part of these are already articulated in the MediShield Life Council 2024 report, one can reasonably anticipate an even broader-based participation from private sector medical practitioners, not just those anchored in private hospitals but also potentially those working in home-based, in primary care and in community settings. This is especially with the MediShield Life Council report recommending expanding coverage to include new outpatient treatments and home-based medical care, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, home ventilation and respiratory support services and outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy. With the changes not only to MediShield Life but also with the ongoing implementation by MOH for Healthier SG initiatives, the upcoming Health Information Bill slated next year and recent announcements by the Ministry relating to information sharing across public and private sector institutions on the National Electronic Health Records, I urge the Ministry to engage private sector medical practitioners more closely on the last-mile impact and concerns arising from the impending broad shifts to the healthcare landscape. Specifically, those coming from smaller or singular clinic entities and how they could be better supported in navigating these slew of changes that are ongoing and anticipated in the coming years. I understand that perception surveys and stakeholder engagements are done from time to time to gauge the readiness of private healthcare providers on the potential changes that could be afoot in the healthcare sector.”
“Among other things, these would have to include ensuring quality of standards and to the extent possible, clinical guidelines to standardise care, regulations to ensure cost-effectiveness of treatment, transparency in billing and claims by the providers and accountability mechanisms, especially at the level of the providers. These come with a view to keep the MediShield Life claims within what is fair, what is reasonable and what is clinically appropriate, and so that claims are neither allowed to be excessive nor exorbitant for any particular condition. The eventual intent, of course, is to ensure that at the national level, the MediShield Life premium remains affordable to sustain for every Singaporean. I note that substantive portions of the amendment Bill look at two key areas: the first being approval, revocation or suspensions of medical institutions in respect of approved medical treatment or services under the new sections 3A and 3B; as well as amendments to Part 4 of the Act under Offences, specifically under False or Incorrect Health Declaration, Means Declaration or Claim Application. My view is that the amendments proposed are sound and reasonable. It covers the breadth of licensable healthcare services and service delivery modes under the Healthcare Services Act in 2020 and lends further clarity to offences that could fall within the remit of MediShield Life claims.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the context of my comments on this Bill, I declare that I am a medical practitioner in private practice. Since 2015, MediShield Life as a national health insurance scheme has afforded all Singaporeans universal and lifelong basic protection against large healthcare bills. And very importantly, this is regardless of age or pre-existing conditions. It is a key pillar to enable access to good healthcare, along with the other tenets of the "S+3M" strategy outlined by the Minister of State earlier, the rest being subsidies, MediSave and MediFund. I note from the MediShield Life 2024 Review Council report that the principles anchoring MediShield Life continue to be: one, coverage for all, for life; second, protection against large medical bills, of course sized at the level of and for public healthcare; third, collective responsibility through risk-pooling at a national level; and fourth, affordable premiums with additional support for target groups and a clear commitment that no one will lose MediShield Life coverage because of an inability to pay premiums. I also note that the Government has accepted the MediShield Life Council's recommendations for the MediShield Life 2024 Review and intend for the changes to be implemented progressively from April 2025 onwards. Mr Deputy Speaker, to ensure long-term viability of such a national healthcare insurance scheme, healthcare providers need to operate within a framework of effective regulations, legislation and accountability mechanisms, much of which this Bill already attempts to address.”
“I believe we can and must engage citizens better as part of our foreign policy strategy. Notwithstanding the chaotic nature of the world today, at this stage of our development as a country, Singapore also has an opportunity to make a difference and shape the world for the better. We can use our size and nimbleness to our strength, lean on our good standing as an honest broker and concerned citizen of the world and seize the opportunity to make a difference and influence for a better world and for generations to come.”
“We also cannot afford to be passive about the quarrel of bigger others, simply because we will directly suffer the consequences of the uncertainty or escalation that could follow. There is a Malay proverb, Mr Speaker, "Gajah sama gajah berjuang, pelanduk mati di tengah-tengah", loosely translated as "When two elephants collide or fight, it is the mousedeer in the middle that dies". In the context of a global order, we are the proverbial mousedeer that needs to be circumspect about how the elephants in the room are treating one another for our survival could depend on the extent to which things evolve between the stronger powers that be. We have also built goodwill and friendships not only with the bigger powers, but smaller states too know that we are a friend. Our chairmanship of the Forum of Small States that we helped initiate, for example, can and has shown the utility in rallying for the unique concerns and advancing the interests of smaller states in an increasingly unpredictable world. My encouragement to the Ministry is to consider looking at the value Singapore can bring to the world and position ourselves as well-regarded partners for global benefit and progress. Mr Speaker, foreign policy and diplomacy is a big topic to address as part of an Adjournment Motion. I concede there are many layers to it and it would be impossible to unpack everything in all of 20 minutes. Like many Singaporeans, I am concerned about Singapore's place in the world and how we navigate a less predictable future moving forward. Citizens do take an interest in how Singapore positions itself today vis-à-vis the uncertain global state of affairs and they are confronted with it more directly than ever before.”
“As part of being true to our principles and values, we must be ready, even as a small state, to express our views honestly with some candour and forthrightness, if necessary, even and especially to our closest allies and friends. In the longer term, it makes for an honest friendship on the international stage where our viewpoints resonate with our citizens and matter to members of the global community, and this continues to put us in good standing as a country upholding values and principles. Thirdly, my view is that Singapore is well poised for a role in leadership, arbitration and mediation in global affairs today and this is something Singapore should continue to hone and position itself to do better in. Like the same yacht in the open sea, Singapore makes no seismic wave in the global order through its land size or natural resources. However, we have the prospect of being the honest broker in the room when giants cannot agree and the testament of our ability lies in how efficiently we do business and run our country, how we continue to be fair and consistent in our stated positions about issues and how serious we are about wanting peace and security for the world. It certainly is in our national interest to do so, yes, but more than most, we have the conviction and track record to show others that the world is better off when we have the will to cooperate and achieve consensus. This perhaps has been a necessary function of our own painful lessons in history and our own limitations as a young nation. But we have shown that we are a people who thrive and continue to succeed only because we believe truly in a rules-based order and consensus building.”
“When this happens at the level of countries, we must be ready to differ from others and continue to align consistently with our values as we have on many occasions as a country on the international stage. I would also stretch it to say that in the context of transgressions over international law and any travesty of justice, we must owe it to our values and principles to not only express our dismay but to rebuke, to fervently object and to hold parties accountable in proportion to the actions in question. As part of our diplomatic efforts, our principles and values shine through not only by the side that we take, but also through the words we choose, as well as how and when we say them, right down to the pitch, the frequency and the volume of how we express them. There is weight and gravity in the words and statements we make that belie the extent of the position or side we take on any given issue and we need to be sensitive to how that informs others of and aligns with our values and principles over issues. Recently, in an CNA interview as part of his visit to Singapore, the hon United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Mr Antonio Guterres said, "We live in a situation in where practically there are no rules", describing the current state of affairs as a chaotic situation. He also highlighted a renewed need to "affirm the values" and that "without values everything is lost". To hear this from the UN Secretary-General himself is both alarming sombre but perhaps somewhat reassuring at the same time. It tells us of the disarray that the world is in today and how far the world is from the values we espouse to live by. But it offers a glimmer of hope for us to bolster and rally around multilateral organisations like the UN for a better world for ourselves and for others.”
“I would venture to further suggest that it is in our natural psyche and ability as Singaporeans to coexist with differences and differing viewpoints, to meet others in the middle to find practical solutions to global problems and then land on a principled and fair view even on something seemingly as complex as foreign policy and finding solutions to challenging global events of the day. Secondly, Mr Speaker, we must double down and continue to take the view of principles and values when it comes to our stated positions regarding what happens around the world. This is the only way possible for us to survive as a small city state and to advocate for a rules-based world order and for international law to flourish and take root. We must remain open to building relationships, strengthen our existing friendships and build new ones and advocate for an even-handed, fair, just and principled approach to how we conduct ourselves and expect others to do the same as responsible citizens of the world. Just like within family or a close-knitted friendship, we want everyone to succeed together, to do well and flourish and to live in peace and security. It is also only through a trusting relationship and friendship that we have the scope to be honest with one another and be candid about our views. In fact, the paradox is that our principles and values as well as the strength and closeness of our friendships are tested most when those close to us err in their actions. No parent will relish calling the Police on their child who has erred in the eyes of the law and no true friend will find delight in reporting another's crime. However, when firmly grounded on sound principles and values, family and friends know this would be the right thing to do.”
“This layers further the nature and depth of connection among countries, allows the formation of closer ties that are first organic and most strongly felt at the level of our citizens and allows for policy-makers to have a nuanced awareness and understanding of the diversity, culture and worldview of others. With citizens at the base and as a foundation of our foreign policy, diplomatic efforts and trade opportunities would come more naturally and readily because it stems from a deep mutual appreciation of the other. Citizen engagement on our foreign policy needs to be done more deliberately in order to share, educate and achieve a wider understanding at the level of every citizen on why Singapore takes certain positions and decisions on the global stage. It must be that we are more proactive in articulating our ethos, values and principles as a country, how it is exercised inwardly through our education, housing and social policies and how it continues to be preserved and aligned outwardly in our foreign policy decisions. I argue that when decisions are based on our core values and principles and start from what we hold dear as a country, citizen engagement would actually be relatively straightforward and easy. As a country, we already stand firm and unapologetically so on the importance of social cohesion in our neighbourhoods, on the expansion of common spaces to live together as a united people regardless of race, language or religion, and we value diversity along with the beauty and strength it brings us.”
“Through this Adjournment Motion, I put forward three suggestions for the Ministry to consider in its efforts to further foreign policy for our country. First, we need to and must engage our citizens better in the exercise of our foreign policy, broadly, for two reasons. The first reason is that our citizens are now more exposed to the world more than ever. Knowledge of the world is no longer just the remit of diplomats and a privileged few. The world has changed over the last 20 to 30 years and information has been democratised to a wider base. With information readily available, citizens will form a view of Singapore's foreign policy, rightly or wrongly, and based on accurate information or otherwise. The second reason is that our engagements overseas can only be more effective and resilient when harnessed with the potential of our citizens, their networks and their awareness of opportunities for the country. By this, I do not only mean Singaporeans based overseas but also to tap on the networks of Singaporeans based locally who have some reach, influence and awareness of other countries. This could be in the form international networks amongst professionals, business owners, volunteers and students even, who, in themselves, take an open view of the world, venture out beyond our shores and let their personal or professional opportunities take them to new places. For our diplomatic efforts to be effective and to thrive, we must look beyond what governments can achieve from formal platforms alone and leverage on nurturing informal opportunities for meaningful relationships across peoples.”
“Whether we like it or not, the impact of major global trends like climate change, sustainability, technological changes and threats to global governance and order remains a common challenge that affects all countries in the world today and requires multilateralism and a concerted global lens to solve. No one country can solve, through a singular unilateral policy, these problems on its back alone, for it requires a concerted effort together. Even as we are on the topic of foreign policy, the terms "local" and "foreign" remain relevant insofar as making the distinction to refer to our collective identity as Singaporeans and as a people in wanting to protect our specific interests, our way of life, our cultures, our homeland and our sovereignty. However, in the context of addressing bigger challenges of the world that could directly impact our survival as a country, the local-foreign distinction needs to be fettered with a willingness to achieve outcomes and common good, building friendships across borders and being open to working together to achieve collective benefit, peace and security, whether it be in the region of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or globally, in the context of the world today. To that end, my view is that Singapore owes it to our diplomats, past and present, who have dared to venture beyond our shores, representing us in faraway forums and lands to further our interests as a country. It can sometimes be lonely, I am sure, and I begin this Adjournment Motion by thanking the work of our diplomats as Singapore's torchbearers on the global stage. I am no diplomat but I have a care about how Singapore is positioned by others and how Singapore positions itself in the world today.”
“Mr Speaker, the work of foreign policy has always been a delicate one. It would not be an understatement to say that Singapore is like a small yacht in an open sea. When a sizeable cruise ship or oil tanker passes, we would feel the waves rather acutely. The waves can come in the form of geopolitical tensions, economic instability, technological disruptions and environmental challenges. Our diplomatic corps had never had it easy in their efforts to further Singapore's interests and, admittedly, things are only getting harder and harder. On one hand, our geographical limitations and natural resource constraints remain much the same as before. Yet, on the other hand, the world has become more volatile and less predictable, especially of late. Misinformation and ideological echo chambers thrive, amplified by social media, contributing to polarisation of public opinion. Nationalism, populist movements and extremist views take root more easily now more than ever, leading to societal divisions. The nature of contemporary threats, online and offline, tend to have transboundary impact and Singapore is not spared. The world has not gotten any smaller physically, but it has gotten more tightly knitted with the advent of technology and social media. Therefore, reverberations at a distance are more acutely and easily felt than before, sometimes, almost as if we experience it for ourselves first-hand. Therefore, I argue, Mr Speaker, our ability to navigate our relationships and approaches in foreign policy are more critical than ever for Singapore's survival if we were to ride the waves of the future, catch the wind and sail our next lap as a nation.”
“Specific for Third Party Exclusion Orders, like addictions to drugs where doctors are obliged to report illicit drug abuse, can there be a mechanism where doctors or psychiatrists who find someone with a gambling disorder and puts himself, herself or others at risk of financial harm, be reported to the Authority for consideration of Third Party Exclusion Orders? Finally, in terms of application on behalf of an incapacitated person to trigger a family Exclusion Order under section 161, may I confirm that an assigned Lasting Power of Attorney Donee or Court appointed Deputy, even if he is not a relative of the incapacitated person, can be allowed to apply the order on the incapacitated person's behalf to protect himself or herself from financial harm? Further to this and as a related question, is there a mechanism where the Courts or the Office of Public Guardian is informed if someone who is an existing Donee or Deputy to an incapacitated person is himself being imposed an Exclusion Order, that his suitability is reviewed with expedience and that he is not allowed to fulfil the role of Donee or Deputy, especially for property and affairs, of that incapacitated person? Today, I believe this only applies to undischarged bankruptcy and I wonder whether the same rule should apply, at the very least, for the duration where a person remains under an Exclusion Order, with the intent of protecting the interests of the incapacitated person to which he is Donee or Deputy to. Notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.”
“Third, regarding increasing the cost per entry to casinos, I am in support of the increase of entry levy for both per entry period or annually and that this gives direct support to the Tote Board for public, social and charitable purposes. I wonder though whether we can tighten further and consider reducing the visit duration to less than 24 hours, for example, over 12 or 16 hours per visit. Practically speaking, a 24-hour period may encourage a person to gamble comfortably over two calendar days depending on the start of the 24-hour window. Fourth, also on a related note to the previous point, regarding Exclusion Orders in general, for a person who is already imposed a Visit Limit due to known problematic gambling behaviours, I wonder if he or she should still be granted the same privilege of a continuous 24 hours per visit as someone who is not on such a Visit Limit. When considered under an Exclusion Order and a prescribed Visit Limit, can each visit be restricted further to one entry and exit only, or be restricted to a specified lesser number of hours, rather than for the person imposed on a Visit Limit be allowed to spend a continuous period of 24 hours at the casino just like any other person? Fifth, regarding family exclusion and third-party Exclusion Orders, could the Ministry perhaps give an update as to whether these continue to be effective and whether the intent of such Exclusion Orders is met and fulfilled in that it supports the recovery of the individual and has prevented further harm?”
“In the context of a casino, such a promotional game is a precursor and an encouragement to the actual casino gambling and casino game itself. My view is that a promotional game in the casino should be treated the same as per any casino game, without having to distinguish it and suggesting that it is of a lesser harm under the Act. Within the changes to the Bill, this distinction is only made under Part 1, section 2 of the Act under the subheading of Interpretation. However, practically, under the relevant sections for Exclusion Orders, this harm is, indeed, recognised as with the same weight and grievance regardless whether they be promotional or casino games and all manner of games, promotional games inclusive, are prohibited. I would like to seek clarification whether this distinction between promotional or casino games is, indeed, necessary at all for the purposes of this Bill. Second, relating to the prohibition of automate teller machines (ATMs) within boundaries of casino premises, I would like to clarify if this law is mainly maintained on principle or are there well-grounded reasons of deterrence for this? Under current practice or regulations, is there a prescribed distance as to where ATMs can or cannot be to a casino? I ask this because within close locality of, for example, the Marina Bay Sands casino as an example, an online search suggests the availability of ATMs of different banks located close within the vicinity outside the casino. Are there similar legal provisions for locality of ATMs at other gambling type of establishments, for example, Singapore Pool lottery outlets? And in the era of online payments and transactions, does the proximity prohibition of ATMs remain an appropriate and effective deterrent at all?”
“A person seized with problem gambling is not only at risk of being impacted with mental and physical health concerns but, as covered by the Bill, families and loved ones are at risk and vulnerable to the extended harm a person's problematic gambling habits can bring. This is so much so that where it was formerly known as pathological gambling, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders, in its fifth edition, DSM-5, has re-categorised it as gambling disorder. So, from pathological gambling to gambling disorder, to become the first recognised non-substance behavioural addiction in DSM. This was also to reflect growing evidence that gambling behaviours activate reward systems in the brain similar to those activated by drugs of abuse and alcohol and can produce behavioural symptoms comparable to those produced by substance abuse. I hope this tells us that we can never let our guard down when it comes to the harms of gambling and, by extension, that the amendments, through this Bill, to the Casino Control Act, must keep pace with any emerging evidence of harm that gambling and casino operations can potentially contribute to an individual and his/her family. With that as a preamble, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have several queries that I hope the Ministry can address. First, relating to the distinction between promotional gambling and casino game, is there a reason or utility for distinguishing "promotional game" in the context of a casino from "casino gambling and casino games"? It appears that the distinction is drawn only when there is a wager of money or casino chips. I would argue that the fundamental harm and psychological impact comes from participating in the game of chance itself, whether wagered on money, chips or otherwise.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the context of my comments on the Bill and ensuing queries, I declare that I am a psychiatrist in private practice and have had to treat individuals with addictions and disordered gambling habits. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Casino Control (Amendment) Bill in that it further strengthens the regulatory framework around casino and gambling operations to keep pace with technology and contemporary challenges in regulating this particular space. This includes enhancing protection against money laundering and criminal conduct, as well as strengthening internal controls and corporate governance for casinos. Secondly, it strengthens the protection of individuals affected by or are at risk of problem gambling, including minors and family members affected by the ill-effects and consequences of gambling by another family member. The obvious and direct harm of problem gambling is that it causes financial harm, which can spiral into debt accumulation, asset loss and even bankruptcy. While some may find some joy and thrill from a momentary, once-off gamble and win, the truth is that it is a fine line and easily a slippery slope towards habitualised problematic gambling, to the extent where financial losses are compounded further from an inability to walk away or exercise self-control, where social relationships are torn from the unfounded preoccupation for the next winning gamble, a loss of trust and an inability to fulfil personal, family and vocational responsibilities and where chasing losses and desperation can contribute to behaviours with legal consequences.”
“Second, Mr Speaker, there would be some anxiety of workers, employers and users alike regarding the eventual implementation of Act. For platform workers, there are concerns about how CPF contributions could impact, especially in the short to medium term, how much they will bring home each month in real terms to support their needs and their families. For employers or platform operators, there are concerns about costs associated with the regulatory requirements from CPF contributions, WICA and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act. The costs of business will likely increase and ensuring their platforms and systems transit to the new model of engagement with their workers will require some time and effort. Lastly, for users, at the last mile, it is also unclear how it will impact delivery charges and whether the availability of such services will be affected in the short term. In this regard, I hope the Ministry can assure members, platform workers, employers and the public on the forward steps to be taken to ameliorate these concerns such that the transition to effecting this Bill, which I believe remains an important pillar for our platform workers, is done smoothly. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, I rise in support of this Bill.”