Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 36.
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not think I need to repeat them. That is all.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations. And I think our own national risk assessment assessed that ship-to-ship transfers are quite a key vector – in a sense, a potential for PF to go through such routes. So, in terms of actions to be taken, it was stated that we will conduct more outreach to these entities. But is that enough? What else is the Government going to do about the maritime sector?”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that. But would the Minister also not agree really that it is an important safeguard for citizens that the Government acts in accordance with its legal authority? And one of those principles is that if the Government is going to collect money like taxes, fees from the citizens, then it has to be properly authorised by Parliament? The fact of the matter is that those past collections were not authorised, and that is why AGC has said that they should have been prescribed. That is why we are here today.”
“Yes, sorry, Sir. I should have stood up. On that clarification, then, we are given to understand that the collections were actually not legally authorised.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation. Because if I heard him correctly in his opening speech, he said that there was a comprehensive internal review, after which MND was advised that the fees and charges should have been prescribed in the legislation – should have been prescribed. But in his round-up speech, he appears to be shifting to say that MND was advised that it is better to do it. So, which is it?”
“Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is that in some cases that I have come across, I was told by the victims that they reported to Police that their images had been artificially created and put up on porn websites, and the Police had advised them to take action under the Protection from Harassment Act, as it is a non-arrestable offence. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify whether this is actually the default position of the Police in such reports. Second, to be fair to the Police, in the cases that I know of, after we appealed for the victim, the Police actually assisted to have the images removed. So, that is very helpful and of most concern to the victims. I would like to ask whether that is something that the Police does ordinarily from most of these reports. The third question is, I believe that under the Penal Code, there are actually some arrestable offences that would actually cover some of the conduct – for example, being in possession of intimate images and so on, under section 377BD and 377BE. So, I would like to ask when the Police would classify the case under these arrestable offences and investigate with the view to prosecution.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2). As I mentioned in my speech, there are three conditions to be satisfied if we were to give up primary jurisdiction and one of them is that it must also be the case that Malaysia has no obligation to cede jurisdiction to us. So, what does that mean?”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries. I personally do not think we need to harmonise the laws of both countries as each country is sovereign, has its own priorities and determines its own laws. Nevertheless, it would be useful to know if the Ministry foresees that such bilateral tensions may arise and whether there are any protocols in place to manage them.”
“Additionally, I note that the Bills of both countries do not mention an important consideration highlighted in MHA's media release – that one country may waive its jurisdiction at the request of the other if there is greater public interest for the requesting country to investigate and prosecute. Perhaps, the omission is because it is difficult to codify how a greater public interest should be assessed. Nonetheless, there will be cases whereby both countries have real stakes in curbing the criminal activity and be equally interested to handle the case. For example, someone who is bringing controlled drugs from Malaysia to Singapore through the RTS Link would be simultaneously committing offences under the laws of both countries. What would be the protocol here? Who will determine whether there is greater public interest for Malaysia to prosecute, and how would this determination be made? In that regard, I would like to make an observation about potential bilateral sensitivities that may arise. From my brief research into Malaysian law, it is clear that while we share a colonial heritage and had similar laws at one time, the criminal laws of our two countries have evolved to show significant differences. For example, while the offence of theft in both countries is still criminalised under section 379 of the Penal Code of both countries, the punishment for theft in Singapore carries a maximum of three years, while in Malaysia, the maximum jail term is up to seven years. As for our drug laws, in Singapore, the mandatory death penalties still exist for certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, while under Malaysia's Dangerous Drugs Act, the mandatory death penalty has been abolished.”
“Section 19(2) of Malaysia's Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link Bill 2026 states that, and I quote, "The government in whose territory the train journey is completed, shall have the primary right to exercise its criminal jurisdiction." Is there a reason why our Bill does not say this expressly? The Ministry's media release goes on to state that the country with primary jurisdiction may waive its right if there is a request by the other country to take over the case on the ground that there is greater public interest for the requesting country to investigate and prosecute. We are thus given to understand that there would be situations where, even though the train was travelling to Singapore, Singapore may give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia. When Singapore may give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia is found in clause 39(2) of the Bill. Clause 39(2) contains three cumulative conditions. First, the person must be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the country the conduct was engaged in, in this case, Malaysia. Second, Malaysia must not be subject to any obligation to cede jurisdiction to Singapore. And third, Malaysia must have brought criminal proceedings. If my understanding is correct, when all these three conditions are met, Singapore cannot prosecute the offender, even if the conduct occurred on a trip completed at Woodlands. Sir, the second pre-condition is not clear to me. Under what circumstances would Malaysia be obligated to cede jurisdiction to Singapore? Could the Minister please clarify where these obligations are from and in what situations would they arise?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the RTS Link is expected to start passenger service at the end of this year. This Bill seeks to co-locate border control procedures by both Singapore and Malaysia at the point of departure, enabling passengers to disembark upon arrival without further checks. Having personally taken the Eurostar train from the UK to continental Europe, I have experienced how the co-location of British and French border Police at the St Pancras station in London saved time for passengers entering Europe by rail. Similarly, to ease travel between Singapore and Malaysia, this Bill to co-locate border controls should be supported. My party colleague Dennis Tan has asked for clarifications on various aspects of the Bill. On my part, I wish to make brief observations on Part 7 of the Bill dealing with criminal jurisdiction. According to the Ministry's media release of 7 April, there will be concurrent jurisdiction between Singapore and Malaysia for incidents on trains in transit and on the railway tracks between the two countries. This is reflected in clause 39(1) of the Bill. As both countries could potentially exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in these locations, the Ministry states that there are arrangements on which country has precedence. It has explained that, in general, the country in whose territory the train journey is completed has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. Earlier, the Minister confirmed this in his Second Reading speech. Thus, if the journey is completed in Johor, Malaysia would have primary jurisdiction, and vice versa, if the journey is completed in Singapore. These arrangements mentioned in the media release are not reflected in the language of Part 7 of the Bill. In contrast, the Malaysian law on this matter is more explicit.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, on what the Ministry has published on this matter, we read of course the recommendations being made about how to handle school bullying, but I was not able to find the fuller report or the findings on which the recommendations were based. So, I like to ask the Minister whether there is any concern about publishing more information about how MOE arrived at those recommendations – meaning, for example, what he mentioned the literature consulted, the findings from various focus groups and so on? So, that is the first question. Second question is related to my Parliamentary Question No 25, which was on cyber incidents. I did not hear him answer whether there has been an increasing incidence of creating and circulating AI-generated fake obscene images between fellow students. So, has there been an increase noticed? And then on this point, I wanted to know what the schools could do if the perpetrators are not known. I mean, how are they supposed to handle such incidents because, obviously, their powers of investigation might be limited.”
“Finally, the ongoing Indonesian investigations have led to delays in adoptive parents applying for Singapore Citizenship for their children. In the meantime, adoptive parents would have to pay higher childcare-related expenses without a clear endpoint, which has been straining and demoralising. I would like to repeat my call to MSF to extend citizen rates to those children, especially when both parents are Singaporeans. Fostering - A Holistic Approach”
“Sir, there are annually around 400 adoption applications in Singapore. Adoptions should be encouraged, not just for the wholehearted act of love that it embodies but also to mitigate our dismal total fertility rate. It is thus very concerning to receive news of investigations by Indonesia into an alleged baby trafficking ring supplying babies to Singapore for adoption. This raises questions about regional efforts to curb child trafficking. In November 2025, Workers' Party Non-constituency Member Andre Low filed a Parliamentary Question about regional cooperation among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries to protect against child trafficking in inter-country adoptions. In answer, MSF Minister Masagos mentioned the ASEAN Regional Plan of Action on the Elimination of Violence against Children from 2016 to 2025. Domestically, he highlighted that child trafficking was criminalised under the Adoption of Children Act. He further stressed the robustness of the adoption process, which included the verification of the child's identity papers, travel documents and conducting checks with birth parents to ensure they had given valid consent and had not offered the child for adoption for improper financial or material gain. In 2022, MSF tabled the Adoption of Children Bill to introduce a specific regulatory framework governing adoption. The framework includes a requirement for adoptive parents to disclose to the Court the payments they have made to the birth parents and others in the process, and to seek the Court sanctions for these payments. It would also be an offence to obtain the birth parents' consent by fraud, duress or undue influence. The question is, when it comes to children's source from overseas, how effective are these provisions?”
“These include volunteers who care deeply about migrant worker welfare and wish to contribute. There are also lawyers who are willing to issue LPAs without charge or take on the role of a volunteer donee if needed. However, the issue the workers face is the high cost of registration of LPAs for foreigners. The registration fee for non-citizens and non-permanent residents is currently fixed at $230. For our low-wage migrant workers, this fee is prohibitive, accounting for a significant portion of their monthly salary. To them, it is simply unaffordable. The public guardian should not have a blanket registration fee for all foreigners, which applies to our high-wage Employment Pass (EP) holders and low-wage foreign work permit holders alike. Our low-wage foreign workers work under tough physical conditions, and we rely on them to do much of the work that Singaporeans are not inclined to do. The least we can do is to make it practical for them to make their LPAs, either without charge or at a nominal fee. Such a gesture would go a long way to showing that we really care. Rethinking Family Policy”
“Sir, as of January this year, there were 410,000 LPAs registered by the Ministry. Momentum has built up as the benefits of making LPAs become more widely understood. My purpose today is to highlight two groups of people who may not be benefiting from the LPA regime for different reasons. They are first, those without any relative or friend to appoint; and secondly, our low-wage foreign workers. First, those without any relative or friend to appoint. My Party colleague Kenneth Tiong has elaborated on why the current LPA regime is not adequate in requiring named individuals and not organisations to take on professional doneeship to manage one's personal welfare. I agree with him that we should consider enabling a donor to appoint the public guardian or the public trustee as donee, as we see in jurisdictions, such as Australia. Such an option will assist those donors as the appointment will withstand the passage of time. The second group who currently have difficulties with LPAs are foreign workers in Singapore under work permits. Though they are relatively young, some of them work under conditions where the risk of serious injury, including mental incapacity, is ever present. Examples include those in physically demanding industries, such as the construction and marine sectors. These migrant workers do not have next-of-kin in Singapore and their friends may not be conversant with navigating Singapore's systems and services. Should they suddenly lose mental capacity, they would benefit if a donee could assist them to make decisions about their personal welfare or manage their funds, for example, to send money back to their loved ones at home. Sir, it is heartening to know that Singaporeans are on standby to help.”
“Thank you, Sir. To follow up with the Minister, is it not the case that if you do not have a rider, there is an exposure that the patient will have to pay hospitalisation bills at 10% without any cap? That is one of the concerns about loss limits in that sense.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to return to the Minister's TikTok video. I should clarify that I do not usually watch his TikTok videos, but that particular one was referred to me. I heard feedback from some people in the insurance industry that that video on IPs and riders created an impression in some members of the public that riders were not really necessary. In the video, riders were symbolised by a wooden horse. I think at one point in time, the Minister flicked the horse off the table. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of that feedback that that video may have given the impression to members of the public that riders are not really that useful. Could he take this opportunity to reaffirm again that riders are indeed prudent for the reasons that I have mentioned in my cut?”
“She followed the doctor's advice to remove both breasts even though only one was cancerous. Her hospitalisation insurance covered surgery for the cancerous breast, but only partially for the non-cancerous one. In April last year, MOH recognised that the line between preventive and diagnostic care was increasingly nuanced, particularly in cases involving genetic predisposition to serious conditions, like breast cancer. MOH mentioned that it would issue claim rules to guide practitioners on breast-related surgical claims later that year. What is the present status of this review? Means Testing and Filial Paradox”
“Sir, Singapore's medical cost inflation is projected to reach nearly 17% this year, significantly higher than general inflation, which is under 2%. I recognise and agree that there is a need for cost containment and management of insurance premiums. On cancer specifically, MOH has made significant moves. For instance, the Cancer Drug List now has about 394 drugs listed that are eligible for subsidies and claims under MediShield Life and integrated plans. Three months ago, MOH announced a key policy change in hospitalisation insurance. With effect from April this year, new riders on integrated plans can no longer cover the minimum deductible set by MOH while the co-payment of bills at 5% of the total bill will be capped at $6,000 per year instead of $3,000. With these changes, the premiums for the new riders are expected to be about 30% lower than for the existing riders. Sir, the Minister for Health has put up various videos on TikTok to explain the change. In one of them, he appeared to suggest that the only use of the existing rider was to reduce the deductible and co-insurance, and the public should consider whether they need a rider at all. However, my understanding is that riders may be essential, especially to cancer patients for other reasons. First, riders help to pay for costly cancer drugs that are not on the Cancer Drug List, which could be critical for the patient's treatment. Second, there is the issue of loss limits. Without a rider, the patient would need to pay 10% of a hospitalisation bill without any cap. The second more general issue relates to preventive medical interventions which may not be covered by insurance. A young breast cancer patient wrote about her plight to The Straits Times' forum page on 28 January.”
“Then Transport Minister, Mr S Iswaran, affirmed that the number of seniors and commuters with mobility challenges would be a consideration for prioritisation. He further confirmed that four of the bridges along Hougang Avenue 3 would be prioritised. Two years later, in April 2025, I filed another question for confirmation of the bridges that would be prioritised and what the timeline for installation of the lifts would be. The next incumbent Transport Minister, Mr Chee Hong Tat, identified the overhead bridges at Blocks 101, 172, 241 and 248 as the four being prioritised. He stated that construction works for that phase of LTA's retrofitting works were scheduled to take place progressively from the fourth quarter of 2025. Based on the latest indications from LTA's consultants to our Town Council, the lift works will only commence tentatively in the third quarter of 2027. This is nearly two years after the fourth quarter of 2025 that Minister Chee indicated for commencement of that phase of construction works. Why is there such a long delay? I hope to have a more satisfactory answer from the new Minister in charge. Covered Walkways for Condominiums”
“Sir, recently a relative of mine suffered a stroke and became wheelchair-bound. Though I thought driving him around would be ideal, I discovered that riding the bus was now a better option for some routes. Our bus stops and buses are wheelchair friendly and the bus captains we met promptly got up from their seats to assist with the wheelchair platform. Such infrastructure and last-mile considerations go a long way to make travel accessible to the wheelchair-bound. That said, mobility limitations come in a wide range. Besides those on wheelchairs, there are many others who use walking sticks or other aids. These commuters are often unable to navigate stairs. To what extent is our system barrier-free for them? Take for instance the layout of some new electric buses. Increasingly, bus models appear to be designed to maximise standing room and space for wheelchairs and prams. This results in a reduction in the number of seats available. In some buses, the front half of the bus only has four seats, with all the remaining seats located at the rear of the bus at an elevated level, requiring the commuter to climb a rather steep step. This has caused difficulty to many commuters who can walk but cannot climb stairs. Could the Ministry review how the layout of buses can better cater to commuters with such mobility issues? Another persistent issue is the lack of lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges. This is an issue across the island and it is also the case for my residents at the Paya Lebar Division of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC). In February 2023, I asked a Parliamentary Question about when lifts would be installed at overhead bridges along Hougang Avenue 3.”
“But as family structures and life courses of Singaporeans become more diverse, our public housing policies need to be responsive to such lived realities. I urge the Ministry to continue to consider how existing rules and frameworks can be better refined to align with these diverse aspirations of Singaporeans. Reimagining Home Ownership for All”
“Sir, HDB's mission is stated as providing affordable quality housing and a great living environment where communities thrive. That mission has become increasingly complicated as Singaporean households take on different structures and HDB needs to assess how to apportion taxpayer subsidies and grants in a myriad of different situations. Some form families later in life, others prioritise multi-generational caregiving, all while following life and career paths that are not always linear. One area that I wish to raise for review is the imposition of the MOP on non-owners that is on the listed occupiers of a flat. Such a policy can cause hardship to families in certain situations. For instance, a widowed or divorced middle-aged parent may want to downsize and decides to purchase a subsidised 3-room flat, listing an unmarried adult child as an essential occupier. Under HDB's policies, the MOP period will apply to both owners and occupiers alike. In the case of standard flats, the MOP is five years, while for the Plus and Prime flats, it is 10 years. 12.00 pm Such a restriction on the unmarried adult children who are only occupiers will restrict their life choice. If they later meet a life partner but defer marriage for another five to 10 years, this could take them out of their critical child-bearing years. Singapore is facing a critically low total fertility rate of 0.87, way below the replacement level of 2.1. Our housing policy should not inadvertently discourage younger Singaporeans who wish to start families. Sir, the policy objective of the MOP to reduce speculation in the public housing market is an entirely understandable and laudable one.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Minister. But before that, I would like to thank him for the additional information that he has just given to us on the recent reappointment of the AG, which was information we did not have before. So, that was actually the thrust of my cut. So, my two clarifications. One, can he confirm then that the Prime Minister did not shortlist any other candidates in the recent round of appointment of AG? And the second is this: he mentioned that the current AG is required to continue managing some ongoing projects, which are quite complex. Is he saying now that the AG has become individually indispensable in the managing of these projects, there is no one being groomed to take over? Because from a system point of view it sounds to me precarious, and in three years' time we might be facing the same argument again.”
“There is no requirement for public disclosure about any of these deliberations. Sir, but the public would have an interest in knowing more about the selection process for such a critical post. For example, in the present case, the AG has had a distinguished legal career in private practice, but the fact is that he will turn 75 at the end of this current term. On the other hand, there appear to be many qualified persons for the post. Did the Prime Minister shortlist other candidates before recommending the reappointment of the AG for a fourth three-year term? It will also be instructive to know what experience each new AG brings to the post, in the light of the fact that the AG is expected to perform several roles. He is the public prosecutor and has the right of audience in any Court or tribunal in Singapore in precedence to others. So, experience in related areas of practice would be very useful. At the same time the AG is the Government's chief legal advisor, so experience in other areas like civil law and business practice are also relevant. Sir, addressing these issues publicly would promote greater trust in our legal system. I therefore invite the Prime Minister to provide more clarity on the selection process both now and for the future.”
“Chairman, in October last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) announced that the President had reappointed the Attorney-General (AG) for a fourth term of three years until January 2029. That was the extent of the information disclosed. Due to the high constitutional office of the AG and the significant powers he is entrusted with, I believe that the Prime Minister can and should be more forthcoming about the selection process for the AG. Hence, I filed my cut with the Prime Minister's Office, but it had been redirected to MinLaw. The AG occupies a uniquely sensitive position under our Constitution. He has the direct discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any criminal proceedings. For instance, he can decide to treat co-accused in the same case differently, or to let someone off with a warning. His discretion is practically unfettered, unless he is found to have acted in bad faith or irrationally. Unlike Judges who have to make pronouncements in open Court, his decisions need not be explained publicly and are not subject to appeal. The most the public can hope for is a voluntary media release from the AGC, giving reasons for prosecutorial discretion decisions that are deemed controversial. Sir, on the one hand, it is important that the AG can act unencumbered by political pressure. However, on the other, it is equally important for the AG to be consonant with public values so that he can act in the public interest. The selection process is critical. 8.00 pm However, the appointment process required by the constitution is currently thin. It merely says that the Prime Minister should consult the Chief Justice and the incumbent AG before making a recommendation to the President, and that the President has discretion to disagree.”
“Chairman, in November last year in Manila, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states signed up to the ASEAN Treaty on Extradition. According to its preamble, there is a desire among all member states to "strengthen ASEAN's resilience and capacity to combat crime, particularly transnational crime by enhancing effective legal cooperation in the field of extradition within ASEAN to ensure respect for the rule of law." In recent years, we have felt the limitations of existing extradition arrangements. During the MinLaw's Committee of Supply (COS) debate eight years ago, I spoke about the case of Canadian David Roach, who robbed StanChart Bank at Holland Village in 2016. He fled to Thailand but could not be extradited to Singapore. It was only two years later when Roach arrived in London enroute to Canada, that Singapore could make an extradition request to the United Kingdom (UK) government. While it certainly makes sense to have an ASEAN Extradition Treaty, I have two questions. First, I understand that the treaty is not yet enforced, as it requires six member states to ratify it. What needs to be done before ratification, and has Singapore indicated its ratification? Second, extradition arrangements need to take into account differences in legal systems and ASEAN countries are a mix of common law and civil law jurisdictions. The region also has varying levels of corruption among public officials. MinLaw has previously stated that there is a need to protect Singaporeans before agreeing to any extradition arrangements. What protections are there? Further Encourage Legacy Planning”
“Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann when she spoke about MHA having to do more with less and having to make transformations to leverage on technology. So, I would like to ask her whether the Ministry also agrees that it is very important that any transformation bears in mind that policing, for example, the services should remain truly accessible to all segments of society. To that end, any reorganisation should also take into consideration whether areas have a high concentration of elderly and how much more difficult it would be for them, under the transformation to get to the nearest manned counter, for instance.”
“For instance, Reuters reported in November last year that Meta platforms, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp were expected to earn US$16 billion or 10% of its revenue in 2024 from ads for scams or other illicit products. This estimate was based on Meta's own internal documents, which Meta later said were overestimates. The Government has been working with social media companies to put in place anti-scam measures. Various directives have been issued to them under the OCHA, to implement measures, such as identity verification and facial recognition. OCHA has been enforced for nearly two years. What is the Ministry's assessment of its effectiveness in preventing scams? Is the Government satisfied with the levels of compliance with these directives by social media companies? Finally, we must remember a key stakeholder in all these – scam victims. There is growing research on the psychological impacts of scams on victims being severe, leading to distress, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and even suicidality. The Police have stated that there are victim care officers (VCOs) who may be deployed to support victims of crimes, including in scam cases. These VCOs are volunteers who need to have relevant background, such as in psychology, social work or counselling. In what percentage of scam cases have VCOs been activated? Finally, are there requirements as to how often and at what milestones victims should be updated about their cases? Fighting Scams”
“Chairman, I wish to raise three topics regarding scams – regional cooperation, the impact of the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) and scam victims. First on regional cooperation. Many online scams targeting Singaporeans are perpetuated overseas and scam compounds housing scammers have been found in some ASEAN countries. It is thus necessary for agencies across the region to work collaboratively, to share information, conduct operations and extradite suspects where appropriate. What is the Ministry's assessment of regional cooperation thus far and are there particular obstacles on this front? Parliament was told in November that the Police had formalised the Funds Recovery Operations and Networks Team, Inspiring Effective Resolution Plus (FRONTIER+), an initiative among several jurisdictions, to strengthen real-time intelligence sharing, improve asset recovery and coordinate joint operations. Under FRONTIER+, joint operations had reportedly been conducted last year across six jurisdictions that led to the recovery of more than $26 million. Among ASEAN countries, which jurisdictions have not yet joined FRONTIER+ and what are the impediments? Turning to the domestic scam situation, the mid-year crime brief by the Police in August last year painted a mixed picture. Those scams and losses in the first half of 2025 decreased from the corresponding period in 2024. Scam losses still totalled a significant $456 million. Social media platforms have been an important channel through which scams are perpetuated. It is thus disturbing to read of the profits that social media companies have been made from scam ads.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a question for the Prime Minister on what he said about BEPS. I am not an economist, so please forgive me if I do not frame it correctly. He appeared to say that we are expecting upside in the next few years due to BEPS. From what I recalled in past debates, he was more cautious. I mean, he said, well, we also have to consider the incentives that we need to give to businesses, and in the end, it might not be a net positive. So, I wanted to know whether he has changed his view on this.”
“With collaboration across agencies and with Singaporeans, we can forge a kinder, more conducive environment for all generations.”
“I agree with the principle of means testing, as our resources are finite. However, some refinement of our means testing criteria is due. Would it be possible for instance, to do away with the per capita household income criterion for schemes, such as Silver Support, and simply look at the seniors' own income? Sir, to round up, I would like to urge the Government to continually review how it empowers seniors and to that end, I wish to conclude on a positive note. I must give credit to the Traffic Police and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) for something meaningful they have just implemented to help senior drivers. For years up to now, drivers aged 65 or older have had to undergo medical examinations for renewal of their licences – for the general driving licence issued by the Police, once in three years; for the vocational licence issued by LTA, it is annually. Senior drivers have come to the Meet-the-People Sessions, expressing confusion over these two requirements. Some have also had difficulties uploading the medical reports onto the portals of the two agencies, as they were not comfortable handling attachments. Now, under the new harmonised medical examination report scheme implemented on 2 February, drivers need only attend one medical examination that can be used by both agencies. In addition, the doctor will be the one uploading the medical report onto the relevant portal. Drivers need not do this themselves anymore. This is similar to the way medical examination reports on migrant domestic workers are being submitted to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) by clinics. Sir, the new scheme implemented by both these agencies demonstrates how a seemingly small gesture can go a long way to easing the life of seniors.”
“If it were in newer areas with younger residents where physical branches were closed, I might be able to understand. But in a community like Hougang where senior residents are the majority, is such an arrangement appropriate? (In English): Sir, back to English. Residents of the area have been asking what is next on the Government's agenda for the removal of face-to-face services? They worry that the Hougang Neighbourhood Police Centre is next. Sir, finally, I move on to my third and final observation on means testing for subsidies and benefits. In the Budget speech, Prime Minister Wong emphasised that families were the bedrock of society and the first line of support for every individual. It is useful to examine whether some Government policies might inadvertently discourage family support. Take, for instance, the means testing criteria for Government subsidies and schemes, the Silver Support Scheme and healthcare subsidies for long-term care and outpatient treatment under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) are prime examples of policies affecting seniors. These schemes have eligibility criteria, such as per capita household income (PCHI). Should a wage-earning adult child decide to live with his or her parents for mutual support, the seniors may become ineligible for support or have support reduced compared to if they lived on their own. The same would apply to a single aunt or uncle with very limited resources, but living with a family of working adults. Sir, it is thus not surprising that there are adult children who decide not to have the same address as their parents or relatives, so that their elderly can qualify for more Government support. This surely cannot be the message the Government wishes to send.”
“Sir, a recent drastic change affecting residents in the Hougang area has been the closure of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Branch Office at Hougang Central. Although the closure of this office was due to the site being sold for development, the lack of a replacement physical branch has upset and worried residents. This is not surprising. According to the Department of Statistics, as at June last year, the Hougang planning area is one of those which has a high concentration of residents over the age of 65. On this, Sir, please let me continue in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): The HDB Branch Office at Hougang Central closed on 1 September, affecting areas, including Hougang Single Member Constituency and parts of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Residents told me that they now must travel to the more distant Sengkang Branch to do their business, which is very inconvenient. In response to the related issue raised in Parliament by Hougang Member of Parliament (MP) Dennis Tan, the Ministry of National Development responded that the Hougang Branch closed on 1 September to make way for the development of an integrated commercial and residential project in the vicinity of Hougang Avenue 10 and Hougang Central. Currently, HDB has not established a new physical branch nearby, but has replaced counter services with electronic service and self-service machines. Here, I would like to ask HDB, before deciding to close the Hougang branch, was there sufficient assessment of the impact on Hougang residents? Hougang area has many old flats and senior residents. Does the Government believe that after the branch closure, residents simply have to adapt to digital services?”
“According to the Ministerial Committee on Ageing, an estimated 83,000 seniors above 65 years will live alone by the year 2030. These vulnerable seniors may end up trusting the wrong people or may decide not to transact with the Government at all. Many seniors, especially the older ones, did not have the opportunities for schooling, unlike later cohorts. According to the Department of Statistics Population trends 2025, as at 2024, nearly 40% of those over 55 years old, have education at below secondary level – a very significant segment. Education levels tell us something about comfort with technology, as using technology usually requires higher level language skills, often in English. Sir, to that end, I wonder if there is information available on the extent to which services may not be reaching seniors due to the demands of digitalisation and how best we can support them. For example, I am aware that the Silver Generation Office is doing health-related outreach to isolated seniors at their homes. How far are they trained and able to assist such seniors in digital transactions? I now move on to the related point of the withdrawal of face-to-face or over-the-counter services. Sir, in the last decade, there has been a rapid withdrawal of face-to-face services across many sectors. One huge change is in banking, with banks driving their customers to digital banking apps and the reduction in physical bank branches. For Government services, this has been happening as well, with face-to-face services being reduced for one reason or another. For instance, we have been told that due to manpower constraints in the Home Team, Neighbourhood Police Posts and some neighbourhood Police centres no longer have manned counters.”
“Our public buses are now fully wheelchair-friendly, with bus stops mostly barrier-free, encouraging disabled seniors to go out and stay connected. Sir, the topic of the Prime Minister's Budget speech this year is "Securing Our Future in a Changing World". Yet, at the same time, amidst this relentless pace of change, we must ensure that we do not leave our seniors behind; many of whom are struggling to keep up with a world vastly different from the one they used to know. Today, I would like to highlight three areas that seem to me to be recurring issues facing seniors: first, the push towards digitalisation; second, the withdrawal of face-to-face services; and third, the Government's means testing policies. First, on digitalisation. The relentless pace of digitalisation is epitomised by the use of Singpass. To transact with all Government departments, Singpass is the default mode. Singpass has overall been a great enabler that eases authentication and transactions across many sectors. For some seniors, however, it is bewildering and disempowering. Seniors who never had a smartphone have to purchase one in order to download the Singpass app and utilise its functions. Even so, many are unable to operate the app as it is simply alien to what they are used to. They find it difficult to open the app to quickly scan QR codes or to toggle between the app short message service (SMS) functions and websites in order to key in one-time passwords, all within a short time limit. Seniors with close relatives or friends can get help for digital transactions. However, this still engenders a feeling of dependency and helplessness. Then, there are seniors without children or close relatives. The prospect of isolated seniors is real.”
“Mr Speaker, last year I turned 60 and was classified as a senior citizen, entitled to a PAssion Silver Card. It was a proud moment for me. I had reached a recognised life stage when society deemed it fit to accord me a public travel concession. It also made me reflect more about the demographic group I just entered and what this next phase of life should be about. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), healthy ageing is defined as the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables well-being in older age. It moves beyond a disease-focused model, aiming to maximise a person's capability to be and do what they value, whether in terms of mobility, relationships or societal contribution. Our own Ministerial Committee on Ageing has adopted a similar approach. In its 2023 Action Plan for Successful Ageing, it is stated that, and I quote, "Ageing is not only about illness and frailty. It also provides opportunities for longer years of active engagement, good health and contribution to society." Sir, I have spoken about ageism in this House in the past. Instead of seeing a grey-haired individual as weak and helpless, we should as far as possible see how that person's ability and potential can be unlocked. We should look to empower our seniors. Over the years, various taxpayer-funded schemes have been put in place to uplift seniors. I will highlight just a few. If seniors wish to continue working, the Government provides employers with a Senior Employment Credit, which has been extended for another year under this year's Budget. Senior Singaporeans have also been included in the SkillsFuture programme, making lifelong learning affordable.”
“First, it was mentioned that the outsourcing will be to civilian contractors. These civilian contractors are presumably private sector companies. What are the criteria for selection of these contractors? Will there be more than one contractor appointed concurrently? Secondly, clause 79 of the Bill provides that an assessment framework for the prescribed offences will be prepared by the Traffic Police or LTA, which these contractors must adhere to. Could the Ministry clarify at what level of detail these assessment frameworks will be pitched? A case example using a specific offence would be useful to understand this. Thirdly, residents may wish lodge appeals for offences to be waived or reduced. Although camera-detected violations might seem straightforward and not appealable, I have not found this to be true in all cases. For instance, in one case, a resident of mine was initially charged with beating a red light. After appealing to the Police, the charge was reduced to a lesser one of not forming up correctly when making a right turn, which carried a lower fine and less demerit points. When the provisions on outsourcing are activated, who will decide on appeal cases? It seems to me that some human judgement and discretion is required, which is better exercised by our public servants in the Police and the LTA. Fourthly, on viewing of camera footage. So far, the Police have been forthcoming in arranging for the public to view camera footage to confirm if they have indeed committed certain traffic offences. Will the contractors similarly make such arrangements when requested? So, Sir, in summary, while I support the Bill, I look forward to the clarifications from the two Ministries.”
“Based on correspondence with LTA in July last year, I was given to understand that LTA's enforcement then was focused on non-compliant devices that were being ridden on public paths. This was a point alluded to by the Minister of State in his speech earlier as well. Our Town Council was told that for non-compliant devices parked at common areas, the Town Council should do its own enforcement or review its bylaws, but clearly, Town Councils are not the subject matter experts as to whether a device is compliant or not. Two days ago, LTA had indicated to our Town Council its openness to including one of our hotspots in a possible island-wide operation against non-compliant AMDs. I welcome the Minister of State's statement earlier also, that under this Bill, the LTA's role will be enlarged in enforcement, in this area. So, Sir, with the amendments proposed today, could MOT confirm that LTA will be taking the lead in the enforcement of the new provisions in the common areas of HDB estates? Sir, next, on the outsourcing of processing of traffic violations, clause 79 of the Bill proposes to outsource processing of traffic violations from the Traffic Police and LTA. According to the MHA's media release of 12 January, civilian contractors will be tasked to process traffic notices for camera-detected violations. It was stated that such a move would enable the Traffic Police to outsource the processing of straightforward cases and hence, free up resources to focus on more complex cases. Sir, while I appreciate that outsourcing will result in cost efficiencies, it is important to elicit some details to understand how this move will affect members of the public. To this end, I have four queries that I would like the Ministry to clarify.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek clarifications on two aspects of the Bill. First, to MOT on the keeping of unsafe devices under the Small Motorised Vehicle Safety Act, and secondly, to MHA on the proposed outsourcing of traffic violations processing under the Road Traffic Act. On the new offence of possession of unsafe devices, Part 6 of the Bill will introduce a new offence of keeping an unsafe AMD by amending the Small Motorised Vehicle (Safety) Act 2020. First, let me say that I strongly support this amendment. From time to time, I have encountered AMD fires in my ward caused by overnight charging of devices suspected to have non-compliant batteries. Such fires are fierce. The damage caused is not just to property, but also to residents of nearby units who suffer from smoke inhalation injury, such as swollen eyes and respiratory airways, and carbon monoxide poisoning. There is also trauma and psychological damage. Long after the fire subsides, residents look on AMDs at the common areas with trepidation, for fear that the next fire outside their door might leave them trapped. Nationwide, the effect of AMD fires has also been sobering. On 12 January, in response to an Adjournment Motion filed by Workers' Party's Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Andre Low, MHA confirmed that AMD fires have been disproportionately fatal. The media release on this Bill by MOT also acknowledged that non-compliant e-scooters pose severe fire risk. Given this experience, I would expect LTA to take the lead in enforcement actions against non-compliant devices, especially those found at HDB blocks, where harm to many residents is most imminent. It would thus be useful for MOT to clarify how enforcement actions will change when the Bill becomes law.”
“Yes, I did, Speaker. Just to follow up on the Leader's point that as I mentioned in my clarification, the WP is looking into whether Mr Singh has contravened the constitution.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I would like to make two clarifications arising from the Leader's round-up speech. The first is that she mentioned more than once that the WP was somehow being inconsistent, in the sense that in Ms Raeesah Khan's case and also Mr Leon Perera's case, we seem to have acted very swiftly. Whereas in Mr Singh's case, we seem to be acting "politically", or some words to that effect. So, actually, in my speech I had attempted to address this by saying that the difference there is that, in Ms Raeesah's case and as well as Mr Leon Perera's case, they admitted their wrongdoings. But in this case, Mr Singh has contested the charges and still maintains his innocence today. So, WP is acting on the judgment, as she noted, we have formed a DP to look into whether Mr Singh has contravened the constitution. And although she says that she cannot wait for us – that is fine. But the fact is that we have our processes and the processes will take their course. The other clarification which I wish to make was in relation to Resolution 5. She mentioned that the Court has found that certain statements were made in the August 2021 meeting, and that is a fact. But as I had said earlier, neither Mr Faisal nor myself were involved in the trial, we did not give evidence. So, in that sense, of course, the Court made its finding based on the evidence before it. But the fact is that we did not have the opportunity to give our recollection to the Court. So, I am still going to maintain that those findings cannot be held against me, and perhaps, at the next phase, or whenever it is, I will take this up again.”
“Mr Speaker, it is not my intention. It is just in response to his lecture on integrity.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, I like to ask a clarification of the Member who just spoke, Dr Syed Harun. So, for the last few minutes he has been pontificating about integrity and institutions in English and Malay, in flowery language. I would like to respectfully ask him how he sees his own position. If I recall correctly, in 2023, you know, he came in as an NMP and that was on the basis that he was a non-partisan person and supposed to fulfil his term as such, but he resigned prematurely and now it turns out that he was in preparation for the General Election to run as a party candidate. So, I mean, does he see any issue with that in terms of integrity and institutions?”
“Parliament had already decided to refer Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the PP. The matter was, no doubt, fully and thoroughly investigated. Mr Singh was prosecuted and eventually convicted, while the Prosecution decided not to charge Mr Faisal, but to issue him with an Advisory. The advisory was to advise Mr Faisal to familiarise himself with the conduct expected of MPs under PPIPA and advising him to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it. Thus, the referral to the PP had reached its conclusion. For the reasons that I have just explained, if there are any further steps that Parliament wishes to take against me, it must be based solely on the COP's conclusions and in accordance with PPIPA. I state once again that I disagree with the COP's conclusions. Resolution 5 states that the matters regarding Mr Faisal and myself have to be considered separately. I must say that this is very vague. Would the Leader be so kind as to elaborate on what is meant and how long we will need to wait for this to be addressed? If Parliament wishes to take any further steps against me and Mr Faisal, would we be given an opportunity to address Parliament before it proceeds to do so? Sir, before I end, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Singaporeans for the support that they have given to the WP, especially in the past few weeks. We have received emails and letters of encouragement. Many Singaporeans have also approached us individually in hawker centres and malls to voice their concerns over this debate. They have advised us to take good care of ourselves and at the same time, emphasised how important it was for us to continue our work. Sir, we in the WP are truly humbled by this outpouring of support from the public. We will continue our work and strive to do even better for them.”
“Earlier in statements to the media, the Leader of the House had stated that the COP had found that Mr Singh, Mr Faisal and I had lied to the Committee by denying that we had told Ms Raeesah Khan to hide her Untruth in an August 2021 meeting. The Leader then asserted that, and I quote, "the COP's findings have been borne out by the Court's judgments." Sir, Mr Singh was prosecuted and convicted. On appeal, the Court upheld Mr Singh's conviction. Neither Mr Faisal nor I participated in the trial. I was interviewed by the Police several times in late 2022 and so was Mr Faisal. My impression was that I might be called as a prosecution witness. Following my interviews with the Police and the submission of my written statement to them, I was not called as a witness by the Prosecution. The COP in its conclusions had noted that I had voluntarily tended evidence that was damaging to Mr Singh. I had spoken about this matter in Parliament on 15 February 2022, when I had explained that the COP had omitted to refer to parts of my evidence given at the COP. I had said that my evidence, if considered as a whole, would not support the COP's conclusions. That was roughly eight months before I was interviewed by the Police. Sir, having read the appeal judgment, I note that there are several references to me, but these are based on the evidence that was placed before the Court by the Prosecution. As the Prosecution was solely against Mr Singh, and Mr Faisal and I were not called as witnesses by either party, we had no opportunity to present our side of the story to the Court. The Court's findings cannot be held against us. The Leader, a Senior Counsel with decades of litigation experience, will no doubt be aware of what I had just said. Sir, now I move on to the next steps.”
“Given the different circumstances of Mr Singh, the question that arises is whether Parliament should subject Mr Singh to a further punishment, by initiating a removal of him from his position as the Leader of the Opposition. Is this necessary? Or is this a political exercise? Sir, earlier some Members spoke about how Parliament will be judged. Indeed, when Parliament reopened last September, I spoke about the importance of Parliament as an institution. I pointed out that under the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index rankings, the Singapore Parliament was not faring well in its fundamental task of being an effective check on the Executive Government's powers. I urged that all of us in this House see each other as fellow Singaporeans who are not enemies, but competitors who had common cause in serving fellow citizens through this House. I emphasised our duty to ensure that this House served the interests of citizens outside the House. Sir, I believe this Motion today does not serve Singaporeans, but it is a party-political exercise, and I can foresee that our Parliament will slip further down the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index rankings, on the factor of being able to effectively check government power. This is unhealthy and not in the national interest. Sir, next, I move on to Resolution 5 of the Motion, which mentions me specifically. Resolution five states that the High Court judgment and the COP's findings have implications on Mr Faisal Manap and myself, which have to be considered separately. I must disagree with a linkage between the High Court judgment and my position.”
“Speaker, in mid-December, media reports quoted the Leader of the House announcing that Parliament would be discussing what should follow after the High Court judgment in Mr Pritam Singh's case. I was waiting to see what resolutions the Leader would ask Parliament to pass. After three weeks of anticipation, the Motion we are debating today is entitled "Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of his Suitability to Continue as Leader of the Opposition." Sir, I wish to offer my personal views on some of the key resolutions. As I am an interested party in the matter, I stress that these views are my own and I am not speaking for the WP in this regard. First, on Resolutions 2 to 4, touching on Mr Pritam Singh. Parliament had, in 2022, referred Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP, who proceeded to prosecute Mr Singh. After a trial, Mr Singh was convicted and his appeal was dismissed. He has paid the fine of $14,000. It bears highlighting the differences between the present case involving Mr Singh and previous instances, when MPs have misconduct themselves and had resigned. Mr Singh's case is unlike the other instances where the MPs themselves admitted their wrongdoings. Mr Singh has maintained his innocence, contested the charges and appealed against his conviction. The Court has, however, found him guilty and his conviction has been upheld on appeal. Sir, the Motion proposed by the Leader of the House does not just ask this House to express its disapproval, but also seeks to initiate a removal of Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition.”