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 14 of 36.
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to what I and some others have said in the 2016 debate on the AOJPA Bill. Of course, I do not want to belabour the House with that debate, which is over. But the fact is that those concerns that we had about how codifying the law has changed the common law by making contempt an arrestable offence, bringing the Police in, giving the Minister immunity, I think those points have been made and I leave the public to judge what was said in that debate. Two specific points on today's debate. First of all, the Minister earlier referred to what Mr Low Thia Khiang had mentioned regarding the Court case where the Government tried to use POHA. The circumstances, if I remembered it, were that the Government tried to apply under POHA against a falsehood rather than for harassment. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that actually what the Court of Appeal said in its decision was that it examined what was said during the Second Reading of the Bill. And Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang, if I am not wrong, said that if the Government had intended to use POHA for any relief, it should have been made clear during the Second Reading of the Bill. And looking at what was recorded in the Hansard, the Minister, in fact, had only referred to scenarios involving vulnerable victims. So, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that looking at the intention that was expressed during the Second Reading in the Hansard, the Government was not a proper person to apply because that was not the intention that was articulated in Parliament, which, of course, raises concerns about the effect of Hansard today for future actions of the Government. Finally, if I may ask the Minister to clarify one point.”
“Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for Minister Ong Ye Kung. Earlier, in his speech, he referred to the case which I cited about the two economists 15 years ago. And according to his analysis, he mentioned that in order to qualify as an actionable POFMA untruth, there are two gates to pass. And his assessment was that in that scenario, gate one was not passed because there was no falsehood to begin with. If I recall the facts of that case, the economists have relied on some data which later the Government said was incomplete and they had asserted based on the data that out of four jobs that was created, only one job went to a Singapore resident and three jobs went to the intake of foreigners. So, I am wanting some clarifications because when you look at that statement alone about job creation, it appears on one reading to be an assertion of fact, which later on, the Government came to correct and said it is not correct. In actual fact, out of 10 jobs, nine went to residents. And one reading of POFMA, it could be argued that Gate 1 has been passed because there is an assertion of some facts which are not correct. And Gate 2 possibly may be passed as well because this may diminish confidence in the Government in job creation. So, I would like the Minister to clarify again, which is very helpful, I think, earlier. But I think we need more explanation about how the Minister sees the case and why POFMA would not apply. Does it mean that if researchers conclude facts based on incomplete data, that would not come under POFMA even though, factually, it has to be corrected?”
“Finally, Sir, at the outset of this debate, I think the Minister made clear that he or the Government already has very vast powers under other laws, and POFMA is a voluntary scoping down of the Government's powers. So, Sir, in totality, I do not believe that the Government would be helpless if POFMA requires the Courts to be the first arbiter in this respect. Sir, finally, to conclude, we have grave objections to POFMA and the damage it would do to Singaporeans who wish to debate and discuss current affairs and topics of national importance. POFMA is lopsided and gives the Ministers too much power in matters where they may be interested parties. We oppose the Bill.”
“As it would be up to the Minister or the alternate to specify the size of the correction notice, the person will have to buy the required space from the newspapers which could easily run into thousands of dollars. The Government says that it is giving assurances in Parliament that that would be recorded in the Hansard and other controls will be enacted in subsidiary legislation. As POFMA is a law that potentially catches all Singaporeans who use digital communication, the Government should make the law as clear and as accessible as possible. Is it reasonable to expect an ordinary citizen who wants to understand POFMA to have to cross refer from the Act to subsidiary legislation, and then to the Parliamentary debates as well? Finally, Sir, before I end, I would like to address briefly the issue that was debated earlier about having the Courts as the first arbiter and the issue of speed. Earlier, there was discussion about whether the Court could respond quickly enough in certain situations. As debated by my party colleagues earlier, we believe that this is a matter of how the Courts are resourced and how the processes are streamlined. So, we believe that it is possible if there is political will to do so. Secondly, the Government is a very powerful Government with a lot of resources. If the Government wishes to correct any statement that is floating online, it does not have to wait for POFMA. It has many channels of communication at its disposal through the mass media, through its own Internet channels – I think more than sufficient to get its information out to combat the effects of any falsehood as it deems fit, even if it has to wait for POFMA adjudication.”
“This was strongly refuted by the Government which then released statistics previously not disclosed showing that, in fact, for every 10 jobs created, nine went to residents. The two economists were labelled as irresponsible and unprofessional. In their defence, they said that they had taken the initial figures from MOM's website while the newly released figures were information they had no access to. If the same had occurred after POFMA was enacted, would the professors be required to tag corrections to their reports online? How would the professionals' standing thereby be diminished in the eyes of their colleagues, students and the world at large? Worst of all, would they and other economists choose to steer clear of researching or writing about Singapore to avoid such backlashes? If so, Singapore would be the poorer for it. Sir, the Government had been trying hard to convince the public that fears about the Bill having a chilling effect on the freedom of speech are unfounded. How convincing is this? The Bill is not only targeted at deliberate falsehoods, but at all statements the Government deems false, even if innocently communicated. Under clauses 11(4) and 12(4), it is stated that Correction Directions may be issued by the Minister or the alternate authority even if the person who communicated the statement did not know or had no reason to believe that the statement is false. The Minister or the alternate may even require the Correction notice to be published in print form in a specified newspaper, which cost will have to be borne by the person concerned.”
“Secondly, in a judicial review, the Court is not looking into whether the Minister's decision is right or wrong. The purpose of judicial review is to determine if the Minister's decision is legal and rational. Therefore, if a Minister asserts that a Correction Direction is needed in the public interest, the Court cannot delve into the evidence to weigh up whether the Direction should be issued or not. So long as the Minister's reasons are in line with the purpose of the Act, the Court will generally not interfere. Judicial review is thus a difficult proceeding to mount and to win. Looking into the totality then, it is my assessment that the powers of judicial oversight of Ministers' powers under POFMA are severely limited. Next, why POFMA may endanger national interest? Sir, the Government should not assume that Singaporeans who criticise or query are malicious. Criticisms and queries may well arise out of genuine concern and provide opportunities for detailed and measured responses. If we wish to imbue citizens with a real sense of ownership, we should focus on empowering minds and hearts with knowledge. This knowledge should not just come when falsehoods emerge, but on an ongoing basis. The Government has confirmed that it agrees that arming citizens with knowledge is a powerful weapon against falsehoods. To this end, the Government should do some introspection as to how it may itself have contributed to the spread of falsehoods by its control of information. One past episode on how incomplete information may lead to erroneous conclusions happened 15 years ago. Two economists were rebuked by the Government for putting up job figures suggesting that the majority of new jobs were taken up by foreigners in the previous five years.”
“This is potentially very onerous due to information asymmetry between the Government and individuals, a point that I shall return to later. The appeal to the Courts is thus very tightly scoped. The High Court cannot inquire into the merits of the decision whether in the Court's view the decision should have been made in that way. On an appeal, the Court, for example, cannot ask important questions, such as: (a) Is the Minister over-reacting? (b) Did the Direction impose obligations on the communicator which are excessively onerous or harsh? (c) Does the public interest require the Direction to be issued? Sir, the Government has argued that the Courts can look, in fact, into proportionality and into the question of public interest. The argument, as I understand it, is that these matters can be looked into under the usual judicial review route. So, let us look at judicial review. I agree that POFMA does not carry a clause ousting judicial review of Ministers' decisions, so judicial review exists. But what does judicial review mean? First, judicial review is a public law remedy which requires the individual to take up a separate legal action against the Government, usually by suing the Attorney-General as the Government representative. In order to do this, the person must first apply for leave of permission from the Court to commence a judicial review. If leave is obtained, the judicial review application can then be filed. These steps will take time. Two sets of legal costs will thus be incurred. The litigant will also be facing the formidable Attorney-General's Chambers with limitless resources to defend the Government. There was no mention by the Minister yesterday that the judicial review process will be made simpler or cheaper.”
“The amendments also asked for more transparency and for an independent advisory council. While I appreciate their intention and efforts to try to mitigate the dangers of the Bill, the WP's objections are more fundamental and require us to reject the Bill. For my part, I will focus my speech on the following concerns: one, the limited role of the Courts under POFMA; and two, why POFMA may endanger the national interest. First, limited role of the Courts. The WP Secretary-General, Member of Parliament Pritam Singh, had earlier set out why the Party believes that the POFMA powers to issue directions should be vested in the Courts rather than Ministers. The Government, on its part, has been stressing that Ministers are circumscribed by an appeals process and judicial oversight. It is important to examine the details of this. First, let us look at appeals. Appeals are basically requests to relook at the original decision on the merits to decide if the decision was right or wrong. Under what circumstances can appeals be made to the High Court? The Bill has restricted the grounds of appeals against Minister's directions. Under clause 17(5), for example, it is provided that the High Court "may only set aside a Part 3 Direction on any of the following grounds on an appeal: (a) that the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement; (b) that the subject statement is not a statement or is a true statement of fact; or (c) that it is not technically possible to comply with the direction". These are the only three grounds on which the High Court can set aside the Minister's Directions. The burden of proof falls to the individuals to prove that his statement was true.”
“Mr Speaker, the WP is not denying the problem of misinformation nor that there is a real risk of the public being misled, especially in the digital age. The concerns ranged from the creation of bots to spread disinformation, profiting from knowingly spreading falsehoods and possible interference in elections by external state's sponsored actors. That said, the Bill before the House to tackle online falsehoods has generated alarm and strong concern. My Party colleagues before me argued some of the key objections of the WP that compelled us to reject the Bill. One such key objection is that the Bill entrusts the job of gatekeeping truths to Ministers and their alternate authorities who are part of the executive Government and would be making certain decisions as interested persons rather than neutral arbiters. During a constituency event over the weekend, some residents expressed to me that when POFMA is passed, they would likely be very, very careful about what they post online and about private messages they send through their phones. Thus, when I saw The Straits Times opinion piece of Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong on 6 May, I was struck by the headline which read "that only a small group was crying wolf". I know that his intention in writing that piece was specifically to respond to the Asia Internet Coalition. But as he himself explained yesterday, the Bill before the House is platform-neutral and will apply to communications on closed platforms, such as messaging groups. Anyone who uses a mobile phone can fall afoul of the Bill. Some Nominated Members have proposed amendments to the Bill in Committee. The amendments seem to accept the powers being given to Ministers to be the arbiters of truth and public interest but attempt to scope them.”
“Speaker, I would like to clarify that I know that he is not making a suggestion about retrospective laws. That would be against the Constitution in the first place. But what I am expressing concern about is that I do not know whether he is suggesting that the Minister be given powers, even prospectively, to gazette new offences, new categories of offences that would come within certain sections. I mean, is the Member saying that MHA is too cautious to have this Bill to spell out certain categories and the Minister should be allowed to gazette new categories as and when he thinks it is necessary?”
“Can MHA clarify whether the changes it is making to the CYPA under this Bill will be brought into effect at the same time that the definition of “young person” is raised to 18 by MSF? Sir, before I conclude, I feel compelled to raise a reservation about the suggestion by the hon Member Christopher de Souza in his speech earlier. I do not know whether I heard him correctly and he may correct me if I am wrong. But I understood him to be suggesting that certain tools be given to the Government to react quickly to emerging crime trends and one of the examples he gave was that, for example, CBT, as an agent, the Minister should be enabled to gazette new categories of relationships that would come within section 409. I am not sure whether I heard him correctly, perhaps he could clarify that. Secondly, I feel that this suggestion, if it is correct, is quite dangerous as I do not think it is proper for the Government to be given the power to enact new criminal sections without coming to Parliament. In fact, in the City Harvest case, the Court of Appeal made quite clear that there is need for reform but that it should be left to Parliament. So, I hope the Member is not suggesting that Parliament relinquish its responsibility and delegate to the Minister such vast powers to create new criminal conduct. Sir, in conclusion, I believe that the Bill, overall, is positive and the Workers' Party supports it.”
“Next, while the Penal Code may be amended to enhance punishments, it would be far better if the provisions were not invoked but, instead, achieve the goal of general deterrence, that is, to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. In this regard, what plans does the Government have to publicise these changes, either to the general public, or in a targeted manner? Finally, I have a query on minors between 16 and under 18 years old. This Bill introduces new offences to protect those above 16 but below 18 years, if the accused was in a relationship with the victim that is defined as, I quote, an “exploitative relationship” under the new section 377CA. This is an important signal to parents, stepparents, guardians and other persons who are able to exercise some control or influence over the minor not to take advantage of young persons below 18. Protecting minors under 18 is consistent with the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child which Singapore has signed and ratified. In this connection, I would like to clarify the amendments being proposed to the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA). Under clause 171 of the Bill, enhancements are being made to protect children and young persons from being ill-treated and from being sexually exploited. Under the current CYPA, the definition of “young person” has a cut-off of 16 years, but the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has announced that it will raise the cut-off age for protection of young persons from 16 years to 18 years. MSF recently conducted a public consultation and intends to table the change later this year.”
“Sir, I am mindful of the workload of the Police, and I am not asking for all VCH cases to be made arrestable. The changes proposed in the Bill to create the new section 323A and to increase the maximum punishment for section 323 are improvements and will facilitate more robust responses to the more serious VCH cases. Nevertheless, the situation needs further clarification and further monitoring to ensure that members of the public get justice for hurt offences. Next, vulnerable victims. In this Bill, there are particular groups of victims deemed as vulnerable and in need of extra protection. These groups are children under 14 years of age, domestic workers, vulnerable adults and victims in intimate or close relationships. Such extra protection is found in the amendments to the Penal Code at sections 73 and 74A and the new sections 74B to E. These sections prescribe that where a victim belongs to one of these vulnerable groups, the offender could be sentenced to twice the maximum punishment applicable to the offence. However, this potential exposure to twice the maximum punishment is subject to a caveat: that if the offender can prove that the victim was capable of protecting herself or himself in the same way as an ordinary person, then the exposure to double punishment would not apply. I am concerned about what this caveat means and how it would potentially undermine the extra protection that was intended. To be more explicit: in what way could it be shown that a domestic worker, a dementia patient or a child under 14 was capable of protecting themselves as any ordinary person? Clarification on this point would be most instructive.”
“At the same time, the Committee rightly pointed out that some victims may sustain injuries which are serious and yet do not fall within the definition of grievous hurt, for example, multiple injuries caused in a prolonged attack. The Bill’s response to this is to raise the maximum imprisonment for VCH itself from two years to three years, but to continue to keep it as a non-arrestable offence. It was stated in the PCRC Report that the need for a Magistrate’s complaint would ensure that only meritorious cases were investigated by the Police. The Report further emphasised that the Police did itself take the initiative to investigate and prosecute in the “egregious” cases. I have some queries about this approach. Firstly, I noted earlier that only 6% of VCH reports resulted in criminal charges being filed. What kinds of scenarios have resulted in the Police initiating investigations and prosecutions without a Magistrate’s complaint being filed? How are VCH cases currently triaged for action or non-action? Secondly, of the balance 94% of cases reported where no charges were filed, what is the Police assessment of the purpose of the victims when they reported the cases to the Police? Is there a mismatch of expectations? For example, did most victims expect the Police to take some action? From time to time, VCH victims express surprise and disappointment that the Police are not taking up their complaints. Thirdly, does the Ministry not acknowledge that relying on victims to file a Magistrate’s complaint requires victims to have the resources and a certain fortitude to navigate the legal system on their own? It is probable that this requirement to see a Magistrate may not necessarily flag out the most meritorious cases, but cases with the most determined victims.”
“For the past decades, the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (VCH) under section 323 of the Penal Code has been a non-arrestable offence, meaning that the Police are ordinarily not able to arrest the suspect without a Court warrant. In addition, being a non-arrestable offence, the typical advice given to VCH victims is that the Police will not investigate the matter unless the victim goes to Court to obtain a Magistrate’s order to direct the Police to investigate, or the victim can pursue a private summons against the perpetrator. Pursuing a private summons will require the victim to spend time, effort and costs without Police assistance. VCH is a common offence that occurs daily. When I last filed a Parliamentary Question in 2014 on the incidence of VCH, it was revealed that the cases reported to the Police amounted to about 10,000 cases a year. This is a large number compared to other reported offences. In fact, the total crimes recorded last year was about 33,000 which, I believe, excludes the 10,000 VCH reports. The figure of 10,000 cases is also likely to be an underestimate, as many cases go unreported. Of the 10,000 reported cases, only about 600 resulted in criminal charges being filed, a rate of about 6%. PCRC is right to note that some past scenarios of VCH can, in fact, be quite serious. In some cases, the injuries may be permanent; there may be elements of bullying or of being outnumbered by a few assailants. Accordingly, I am supportive of the introduction of section 323A to create a new offence of causing grievous hurt even though only hurt was intended. This will now be an arrestable offence attracting higher punishment of up to five years' jail, which the Police will be empowered to investigate without a Magistrate’s order.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer attached to a firm that practises criminal law. The Bill today is the culmination of the work of PCRC, as refined by public feedback. After the Bill was tabled in Parliament for First Reading in February, the Second Reading was deferred to May, which was useful to give the House more time to study the Bill. The Workers' Party is in general support of the Bill, which makes several broad-based improvements to our primary criminal law, that is, the Penal Code, and to related laws. To me, there are four aspects particularly worth mentioning. First, the Bill updates the law to handle new and emerging crimes, such as online crimes, for example, the offences of theft and cheating are to be broadened to cover theft by online fund transfers and keying in false information into machines to generate potentially harmful outcomes. Secondly, there is a new concept of presumptive minimum sentences. This will give sentencing judges some discretion to depart from the mandatory minimum sentences for offences in certain situations. By introducing some flexibility to the Court, there would be less need for plea bargaining, making justice more transparent. Thirdly, there are changes to strongly deter and punish crimes against victims who are more vulnerable, such as minors under 14, domestic workers and vulnerable adults. Fourthly, the marital rape immunity will be removed. This has an important signaling effect that society today views marriage as a union between equal partners. Despite its positives, I have some queries and uncertainty over some aspects of the Bill. For today’s debate, I will focus on just two matters. They are: one, the approach towards offences of causing hurt; and two, vulnerable victims. First, approach towards causing hurt.”
“Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister for Defence. Earlier in his speech, he mentioned that the New Zealand Attorney-General (AG) exercised his discretion and declined to investigate the incident. However, we know from other instances, for example, Gavin Chan's death in Australia, that the Queensland authorities did actually investigate and there was a Coroner's Inquiry held there. So, I would like to ask the Minister: did the New Zealand AG indicate any reason why he declined to do so? Going forward, should such an unfortunate incident happen in other countries, would we or would we not expect the foreign government to investigate?”
“Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for Minister Iswaran. The first is, I am glad to hear that he confirmed that the private sector vendor Secur Solutions Group is actually governed by the PDPA and that PDPC is looking into their conduct. My first question will be, is the PDPC going to wait for the outcome of the HSA investigation and then, follow on from there or is it concurrent? The second question is, it was mentioned that the Prime Minister has now convened a cross-Government committee chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo to look into standards of Government IT security. Does this confirm that the Government is actually not satisfied and that the standards so far have been wanting in the public sector? Finally, the third question, which is an interesting one, is the Minister's answer to Nominated Member Ms Irene Quay's question about financial penalties on organisations. The Minister mentioned that it was not meaningful to fine public agencies because the fine would in the end come from the public purse. But can the central Government not operate on the premise that no additional money is going to be provided to public agencies to pay fines and, therefore, the agencies would just have to cope with cuts somewhere else to pay these fines, whether it is from bonuses of Senior Management or whatever it is? Because there is still an important signalling effect, that the Government is prepared, as an organisation, to abide by the same standards it expects of small businesses.”
“Finally, the wording of clause 6 is that the sentence of RT is to take effect on the date it was passed "or at such later date as the Court may determine". It would be important for the Ministry to clarify that such post-dating would only occur if the offender is not incarcerated while waiting to commence a sentence of RT.”
“Clause 6 of the Bill basically removes the right of the sentencing judge to backdate the period of custody to an earlier date. Currently, backdating a sentence to start running at an earlier date could happen if the offender was remanded in custody from the time of his arrest and continued to be in custody for weeks or months before he is eventually sentenced. Such backdating recognises that he has lost his liberty from an earlier date, and takes that pre-sentence period into account. MinLaw has explained that it is removing the possibility of backdating sentences of RT because RT is geared towards rehabilitation and if sentences are backdated, the offenders may not have enough time to complete the prescribed programmes. That I understand is due to the changes made to RT over the years. But when backdating does not happen, how do we account to the individual for the period he or she has spent in pre-sentence custody? Not backdating may cause injustice to the offender. I see that MinLaw is alive to this injustice as, in its media release, it has stated that agencies will work together to ensure that where RT is a likely sentence, remand is avoided or minimised where possible. As RT will be imposed on young offenders, namely, those below 21, it is certainly important to ensure that these youths are not incarcerated for longer than necessary, as it would affect their reintegration into education, society and work. In order to avoid or minimise remand as MinLaw has stated, what practical things will be done? For example, will the prosecution be more prepared to ask for lower bail amounts, or will the cases be fast tracked in a specific way?”
“Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer attached to a firm that practises criminal law. I am generally supportive of the amendments proposed, but I would like the Ministry to clarify two matters, firstly, relating to VRIs and, secondly, on RT sentences. First, on VRIs, I must commend the Ministry on how far it has moved on VRI over the years. When I first broached the idea of video-recording of statements during the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) Committee of Supply (COS) in 2008, more than 10 years ago, it was met with a negative response. Today, we are here discussing how to enhance the VRI framework to cover law enforcement officers outside of the Singapore Police Force. This is, indeed, progress, and progressive. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to enable non-Police officers to investigate offences relating to a statement made by an audiovisual recording. The rationale for this change was explained in MinLaw's press release of 11 February, as to enable CNB officers who had used video-recorded interviews as part of their investigations to be able to investigate VRI-related offences. This makes sense. As to which types of cases are being investigated with the use of VRI, section 22 of the CPC currently makes VRI mandatory only in cases of rape under section 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code. It is discretionary in all other circumstances. To get a sense of how widespread the use of VRI is among our law enforcement agencies, could the Minister inform the House as to which agencies have commenced using VRI, and for what kinds of offences? Also, what has been the assessment thus far of the usefulness of VRI as an investigation tool and as evidence in Court? Secondly, on RT sentences.”
“Chairman, I do not recall hearing a response to my cut on the private ambulance service industry. So, may I have a response to that and, in particular, what the Ministry is doing to improve outcomes for consumers?”
“To mitigate the risks and fallout from data breaches, common and effective measures include improvements in ways to store and access information, such as data compartmentalisation and restrictions on authority. For instance, it would be odd for persons responsible for macro-level policy to access personally identifiable information. It would also be unnecessary for staff not attending to a particular patient to access the patient’s records. There may be particular sensitivities if certain information gets into the wrong hands. In view of all this, I would like to ask what MOH has done, or is doing, to compartmentalise data and limit who can gain access to data stored at MOH and at the healthcare providers it regulates. Cybersecurity – Protecting Medical Information”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore has been centralising patients' health records through the NEHR. The benefits of convenience are evident. Patients can go to any healthcare facility and receive treatment that takes account of their medical history. However, the recent MOH data leaks and the cyberattack on SingHealth have shaken the public's confidence in such centralised electronic health records. These incidents targeting patients' personal records are reminders of the risks to privacy and security that accompany convenience, risks which we had not understood or taken seriously enough. MOH has announced that primary care providers, such as private GPs, will be required to enter case notes into NEHR. This has been held in abeyance while MOH does a thorough review of its cybersecurity. However, even before the recent breaches, some GPs in private practice told me they had grave reservations about the impending requirement for them to key in confidential data about their patients into NEHR. They cited that they had a duty of doctor-patient confidentiality and were not comfortable keying in the medical conditions and drugs prescribed to patients, for review by unknown persons down the line. In view of the potential for unauthorised access or leaks, they would also be reluctant to put in sensitive information, however relevant to treatment. Sir, we must acknowledge that even with the best fortifications, cyber defence is an endeavour that pits us against potentially the most technically advanced and resourced hackers in the world. There is also the risk of disgruntled or rogue employees who can exploit legitimate access for improper purposes. As it is impossible to completely prevent hacks and data breaches, one key concern would be to limit damage in the event of breaches.”
“The current proposal is that those licensed to provide emergency ambulance services would have more stringent requirements. For example, they will need to appoint a clinical director to maintain standards of comprehensive emergency care, to conduct audits, do training and protocol development. In contrast, businesses which provide medical transport services in non-emergency cases do not need to meet the same standard but will have operational restrictions. For example, they will not be allowed to have blinkers and sirens. Operators have pointed out that patients who are initially stable cases can deteriorate suddenly enroute to the hospital which will turn a non-emergency situation into an emergency one. When this happens, time is of the essence and blinkers and sirens may make all the difference. What is the status of MOH's review of the regulation regime? Finally, to better facilitate consumer choice, could the Government arrange for a one-stop portal for consumers where they can evaluate the offerings and consumer feedback of private ambulance services? As for the reasonableness of the charges, will the Government consider publishing fee benchmarks so as to keep this essential service affordable? Primary Care and CHAS”
“Mr Chairman, while the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) ambulances attend to about 90% of emergency cases, consumers will call for private ambulances in emergency cases if they wish to send a patient to a preferred or private hospital and in non-emergency cases. For the consumer, however, the current lack of regulation has meant that there is patchy information on available services and vastly different consumer experiences. On the one hand, I have personally had good experiences with private ambulances. On the other hand, I hear less happy accounts from residents. Such feedback includes high charges and a lack of advance disclosure or transparency about the costs of various services and equipment. Others include asking the family to decide if certain equipment should be used enroute which laypersons have little knowledge of. Another concern is that private ambulances attending cases at Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats may not have the stretchers that can be manoeuvred into an incline position to fit the size of HDB lifts. The quality of the vehicles is also disparate, with some ambulances apparently retrofitted from cargo vans. Some businesses insist on taking cash payments only, which can be stressful if the charges come up to about $1,000 to be paid by the family in the middle of the night. It was recently reported that regulation is coming in the form of the proposed Healthcare Services Bill. While this is welcomed by consumers as well as industry players, there are some concerns. One concern is the proposed distinction in licensing requirements between those operating emergency ambulance services and those operating medical transport services.”
“Secondly, what are the changes needed by MSF, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Courts and the media to operationalise the changes regarding the crime cases involving such youths? Lastly, will there be any changes to the scope and resources for young offenders' rehabilitation? At-risk Youths”
“Chairman, over the years, I have encountered families which find life a struggle. Major causes of instability include divorce, lack of finances and mental health issues that affect one’s parenting capacity and the ability to work. Children and youths in such families are subject to crises, sometimes on a daily basis. They do not eat well and grow up with a maturity well beyond their years. It is thus very encouraging that the Government commenced the KidSTART programme three years ago targeted at children from low-income families. The three-year pilot was expected to benefit about 1,000 children living in the pilot regions of Kreta Ayer, Bukit Merah, Taman Jurong, Boon Lay and Geylang Serai. We are told that, under KidSTART, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) coordinates holistic services for families, and monitors and supports child development from birth onwards. Last month, the Minister for Finance mentioned in his Budget Speech that more than 900 families had received support from KidSTART since 2016. Could the Ministry elaborate on whether the Government is encouraged by the outcomes and whether KidSTART will be rolled out progressively nationwide? On the topic of youths, I welcome the Ministry's announcement last month that it is proposing amending the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) to increase the cut-off age for protection from 16 to 18 years. This will put us in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which Singapore has signed. I would like to ask for elaboration on how this will be implemented. First, when is the amendment to CYPA expected to be tabled before Parliament?”
“Mr Chairman, under the CPF Act, CPF members are allowed to transfer their savings to their parents and grandparents, provided the members satisfy certain conditions. Members aged below 55 need to have the Full Retirement Sum of at least S$166,000 in their accounts, before they can do so. When the Act was amended in 2017, this provision was extended to members who had the required Basic Retirement Sum of about S$83,000, if they also had a sufficient property pledge or charge to make up the rest of the Full Retirement Sum. These provisions are useful to enable CPF members to help provide for the retirement needs of their family members, giving them some peace of mind and reducing intra-family poverty. These days, the formation of an immediate family nucleus should not be assumed to be the norm. Many Singaporeans are single or childless in their senior years. These persons will not have children or grandchildren who can top up their CPF balances. I would like to suggest that the Government consider widening the categories of persons who can receive CPF transfers from family members, to include the members’ own siblings and the siblings of one’s parents, that is, uncles and aunts. These are already relationships recognised under our law for inheritance of estates, and will help boost retirement adequacy of single and childless seniors. Retirement and Housing”
“While this is an internationally accepted indicator, the International Labour Organisation has, over the years, highlighted the multifaceted nature of underemployment that cannot be captured by time alone. For instance, in 1998, it passed a resolution stating that there was a need to revise the existing standards on the measurement of underemployment and to broaden the scope to include also inadequate employment situations. Inadequate employment situations cover all those in employment who want to change their current work situation for reasons, such as inadequate use and mismatch of occupational skills; inadequate income; working excessive hours or in unstable jobs. Broadly speaking, inadequate employment could be skills-related, income-related or working excessive hours. To this end, the OTC Institute survey mentioned earlier recognised that underemployment was too complex to be measured by a single factor alone, for example, time. The survey came up with a matrix of three factors to identify "severely underemployed", that is, university graduates working full-time who were earning less than $2,000 per month. The OTC Institute suggested that it would be reasonable for the Government to target policies towards groups of severely underemployed persons. In view of all these, can MOM update the House on its tracking of, and policy towards, underemployment? 2.00 pm Employers and Good Jobs for Singaporeans”
“Chairman, underemployment basically refers to situations where a person is working but below capacity. According to the International Conference of Labour Statisticians, measuring underemployment is necessary for better policymaking, as it would improve the analysis of employment problems and contribute towards formulating and evaluating policies and initiatives to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment. In a 2017 survey on underemployment by the Ong Teng Cheong Institute (OTC Institute), it was found that underemployed persons tend to face many challenges, such as low morale, insecurity about their job and income, and difficulties in meeting daily expenses. While we are responding to job disruption by engaging in economic transformation and reskilling workers, it would be wishful thinking to expect that displaced workers would find work in new industries in a seamless manner and without any discontinuity in income and benefits. To this end, it would be most useful to know how well the professional conversion programmes, such as A&G, did in terms of matching jobseekers with new jobs of comparable pay, or the extent of the pay cuts taken. Further, I understand that A&G consists of two sub-schemes: Place and Train, where an employer has been found for the jobseeker, and Attach and Train, where training is done before an employer is found. For this latter group under Attach and Train, what was the success rate for placements? Sir, it is good to note that MOM is tracking underemployment. Currently, MOM presents underemployment based solely on time, that is, those working part-time when they wished to work additional hours.”
“Chairman, I have one clarification for the Minister on the issue of personal data protection. One of the points which I raised was about the work of PDPC in helping to achieve outcomes for complainants. And I believe that, in his response, the Minister did say that cases could be referred to mediation. We know that is provided under the Act. It is also provided that the PDPC could direct resolution of a complaint in a way that it considers fit. So, I would like to ask the Minister if he can confirm whether there have been any cases where these alternate dispute resolution methods have actually resulted in compensation or in a payment of some settlement sum to the complainants, whether he is aware if there have been such cases.”
“While I accept that Government agencies have many laws and regulations concerning data obligations, is there a convincing reason to exclude public agencies from PDPA? Ethical Use of AI”
“Chairman, the PDPC was set up in 2013 as the implementing agency for the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). According to the PDPC's website, the number of enquiries and complaints received by it in the last four years ranged from between 2,200 and 3,300 annually. I have a few enquiries about this. First, were the major classes of complaints related to the "Do Not Call" Registry or were they complaints about organisations not exercising reasonable care to protect personal data from unauthorised disclosure? Secondly, what are the resource and staffing level of the PDPC to enable it to look into the kinds of cases it is facing? The Minister recently pointed out that in the SingHealth data breach, the PDPC had leveraged the findings of a Committee of Inquiry (COI) called by the Government. If another major breach were to occur and a COI is not formed, does PDPC have the resources to investigate a major case on its own? 2.30 pm Next, I would like to ask about outcomes achieved for complainants. PDPC has usefully published its decisions online. Where the PDPC found that organisations were in breach of their obligations to safeguard personal data, it was usual that PDPC will impose financial penalties and also give directions on how the organisations should improve its data security arrangements. Has PDPC ever assisted a victim of a data breach to obtain redress, for example, mediating a financial settlement with the organisation? Finally, the coverage of the PDPA still excludes what is defined as "public agencies". This exclusion seems artificial when data is collected by entities under PDPA obligations and then transmitted to the Government.”
“As mentioned in this year's Budget speech, today's more uncertain world spells greater possibility for tension and even conflict. Unexpected incidents under such circumstances can result in potentially dangerous unintended and uncontrolled escalation. The Government has rightly continued to stress the need for Singapore to support a stable, rules‐based order founded on international law and norms. I would like to ask how the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) provides this support through its defence diplomacy efforts and its guiding principles. When meeting and engaging with foreign counterparts during peacetime, such as in the Shangri‐La Dialogue, how does MINDEF seek to contribute to the prevention of unintended and uncontrolled escalation of tensions in the region? More specifically, what kind of practical cooperation with other militaries regionally has MINDEF engaged in to enhance cooperation and dispel mistrust? Does MINDEF maintain or initiate high‐level military hotlines with the military from other countries to ensure that any potential issues on the ground can be discussed quickly?”
“Mr Chairman, I have a clarification for Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary on my cut on personal data protection in the public agencies. I would like a clarification from him as to whether it is the expressed Government policy that persons whose data has been compromised, while in the care of public agencies, that such persons have a right to know that there has been a breach and that they have the right to know in a timely manner.”
“Besides commencing an expensive lawsuit against the Government, how else can an aggrieved person get compensation? Smart Nation Programmes”
“Digital Defence is now our sixth pillar of Total Defence, and all, including the Government, play a role in this. On 12 February this year, the Minister for Communications and Information told the House that GovTech is overall in charge of the security and safeguards systems for data and that Government Technology Agency (GovTech) is the agency that does many of the reviews, ensures the Government agencies are in compliance with the Instruction Manuals and other provisions. I would like to ask whether GovTech specifically oversees that citizens' personal data stored within public agencies is safeguarded from misuse, hacking or leak. For instance, does GovTech audit the data and privacy protection practices of public agencies? In view of the risks and breaches that had occurred, would the Government look into publishing an annual report on the cybersecurity readiness of public agencies to give some reassurance to citizens and to encourage the achievement of high standards? Next, while there are regulations to punish public officers who do not comply with confidentiality obligations, what is the position of the innocent persons whose data has been compromised? For instance, it was recently reported that a station inspector had illegally accessed the Police's computer system to screen the telephone records of a man he suspected of having an affair with his wife. In such a case, are there guidelines about whether the affected person should be told and within a certain timeframe? Such information is crucial for victims to protect themselves and to seek recourse in a timely manner. Finally, during the recent debate on the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) registry leak, the Government told the House that a person whose data had been leaked, had the recourse of suing MOH.”
“And if this is so, did the Prime Minister consider how appointing the spouse of a Senior Minister of State would affect the public perception of the independence of the AGO? Pensioners under MediShield Life”
“Sir, there are certain public officers created under the Constitution with functions and duties to safeguard the public interest. These appointments are recommended by the Prime Minister and subject to the discretionary approval of the President. One example is the Attorney-General. Under Article 35, the Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence. Another example is the Auditor-General, who, under Article 148(F) is entrusted with the constitutional duty to audit and report on the accounts of all departments and offices of the Government, the Public Service Commission, the Legal Service Commission, the Supreme Court or Subordinate Courts and Parliament. Sir, we are all familiar with the annual audit reports of the Auditor-General's Office (AGO). It often contains embarrassing findings and may uncover misconduct. The AGO reports are a key measure by the Government towards accountability and the prudent use of public funds. Chairman, today, I would like to ask for clarification about the selection process and criteria used by the Prime Minister in selecting the Auditor-General. The Constitution does not spell out any qualifying criteria for being the Auditor-General. In recent history, our Auditor-Generals have been drawn from senior civil servants and there has been an appointment of a new Auditor-General this year. I do not know the current appointee personally and I have no reason to doubt her integrity. Indeed, I am prepared to assume that she will do her best to do her work honourably. However, can the Prime Minister confirm that the current appointee is the spouse of a Senior Minister of State?”
“I do not know whether the law enforcement agencies have ever allowed payment of composition fines by instalments, but I know that the clock is ticking to the deadline for payment. Failure to pay will result in the case going to Court and attracting higher fines. So, I did not write in to the agency but instead found funds to assist her to pay. Time and again, I have seen residents who do not attend Court being subject to Warrants of Arrest over regulatory matters, such as parking and smoking fines. I believe more compassion can be shown in this area, such as to allow instalment payments for composition fines. Sir, finally, in conclusion, the Government has recognised that Singapore faces long-term challenges, including inequality and social mobility. I acknowledge that significant efforts have been made towards economic transformation and upskilling our workforce. What we need to watch closely are the many stress points on our social solidarity, and address them, if we are to be a Strong and United Singapore.”
“In order to get a better handle on how underemployment is affecting our society, I ask the Government to continue to improve its measures of underemployment and to monitor the effects of underemployment on the well-being of different segments of society. I plan to talk more about this at the MOM Committee of Supply (COS) debate. Finally, Sir, I wish to make a few observations about the vulnerable workforce. Over the years, I have noticed that at the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), residents of lower income commonly report doing gig economy jobs, such as furniture movers and in food delivery. Some have told me that they have few options and need the flexibility of time to attend to family issues which crop up often. They do not have paid help or family support and find it difficult to take time off regular work to attend to personal matters. It is well-known that gig economy jobs come with hardly any employee benefits, such as paid leave or bonuses, and do not attract CPF contributions, though I am aware that the Government is looking into improving terms and conditions for gig workers. The vulnerable workforce also has less ability to withstand the vicissitudes of life. I recently encountered a young single mother who had three children. She received no support from the children’s father whom she divorced. Due to her need to work and care for her young children, she took on a gig job, delivering food on a motorcycle. In a moment of inattention, she beat a red light and was duly notified by the Traffic Police to pay a composition fine of $200. As she did not have the funds to make the payment, she came to the MPS for help.”
“The survey yielded an underemployment rate of 4.3%, which was higher than the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) rate of 3.3% based solely on time criteria. In the survey, the profile of the underemployed showed that they tended to be female, have no children and stay in HDB flats. They were employed at businesses serving mainly the domestic market, with a median age of 35, and with 10 to 15 years of work experience. As to the effects of underemployment, the study found that the underemployed reported facing challenges, such as having lower status than what they deserve, being underpaid, feeling insecure about their income and job, and lacking finances for daily expenses. This group indicated that they were in their current predicament involuntarily, as they were found to want to better their prospects by reskilling and upskilling, although they were unsure of what skills may be in demand and how to take the next step. Turning now to MOM's figures, as at June 2018, the underemployed rate was 3.3%. The rate was derived on a time-based definition of underemployment, that is, persons working part-time and would like to work full-time. Even by MOM’s measure, the 3.3% translates into nearly 73,000 workers. The MOM statistics also suggest that underemployment affects those with less education more: while underemployment for university graduates is at 2.3%, for those with secondary education, this rises to nearly 4%, and for those with below secondary education, the underemployment rate is 5%. This may suggest that if there may be a class dimension to this as well, with the less educated more prone to underemployment. Sir, it is food for thought to try to reconcile the results of the survey by the Ong Teng Cheong Institute and the MOM data.”
“To this end, there have been significant efforts by the Government and the private sector to respond to disruption, as seen in the massive digitisation efforts, automation initiatives and PSPs. The message that workers need to adapt is clear. The question is how well such initiatives are serving to give economic security to workers. For instance, we are told that from 2016 to 2018, the Adapt and Grow Initiative has enabled more than 76,000 jobseekers to find employment. While the number seems impressive, it would be useful to know whether these jobseekers who switched industry had comparable remuneration or had pay cuts, and how many of them could not find new employment even though they tried to sign up for the initiative. Next, I move on to underemployment. Underemployment arises, basically, when a person is working but below his or her capacity. This is referred to by the International Labour Organisation as "labour under-utilisation". Today's labour market is much more diverse than when MG came out to work in the 1970s. In those days, it was common to hear of employees spending their entire working lives with one employer, and "job hopping" was frowned upon. Today, employees move more often, take on contract assignments and do gig economy work, including some university graduates. As far as underemployment is concerned, there was a recent interesting survey, published in 2017 by the Ong Teng Cheong Institute. The study discussed the issue of how to measure underemployment properly and recognised that underemployment was too complex to measure with any single indicator. It decided to adopt a multifactor definition of underemployment, namely, persons who were degree holders and above, in full-time work and earning less than $2,000 per month.”
“On the fiscal front, there should be increased spending on health, education and social safety nets. Labour markets should be reformed to boost labour's share of income. Coming back to Singapore, the direction of the Government in economic transformation and workforce reskilling for relevant industries is necessary. The other pillar that is equally necessary is to have compensatory policies in the form of social safety nets to cushion citizens who face disruption and are unable to fit into different industries immediately, or perhaps unable to catch up at all. The theme of Budget 2019 is to "Build a Strong, United Singapore". To this end, I wish to speak on the issue of disruptions to employment, under-employment and the vulnerable workforce. First, disruptions to employment. We have heard a lot during this debate about the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". Across the world, the impact of Industry 4.0 on jobs has generated intense interest. Many predict major job losses due to automation. For instance, in a 2013 Oxford University study of the impact of computerisation on employment, authors Frey and Osborne predicted that almost half of US workers would face risks of their jobs being automated by 2030. Economist Tyler Cowen has argued that automation could produce profound inequality as a majority of people will find their jobs taken by robots and will be forced into low-paying service work. Only a minority – those highly skilled, creative and lucky – will have lucrative jobs, and be wildly better paid than the rest. Others are less pessimistic, with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist Erik Brynjolfsson noting that automation will eventually create jobs. Singapore, being one of the most open and connected economies, is readily open to job disruption.”
“Mr Speaker, in his speech, the Minister for Finance was right to point out the decline in support for globalisation. This decline in support is not an irrational one. There is evidence that globalisation has so far produced winners as well as losers. World Bank economist Branko Milanovic studied the distribution of incomes across the world as globalisation took root over a 20-year period from 1988 to 2008. He concludes that, for individuals, globalisation has brought about divergent changes in real income. The "winners" included the bottom third of income earners, the middle classes of the emerging market economies in China, India and Indonesia, and the global top 1%. The "losers" were the middle class of the old OECD countries, and the poorest 5%. This could offer a partial explanation for Britain voting to leave the European Union, and for the triumph of the United States (US) Presidential candidate Trump's election slogan: "America First". Most analyses show that Asia is doing relatively well with the growth of the middle class, but Asia faces the challenge of growing domestic inequality. Thus, it is good to see the Minister for Finance acknowledging that Singapore's long-term challenges include social mobility and inequality, which will be stressors of our social unity. Much literature has been published about what governments should do to manage globalisation for their citizens. Some have argued that living standards of citizens should be equalised as much as possible, with particular attention paid to vulnerable groups, that financial markets and labour protection need to be regulated, and welfare policies implemented. It is suggested that taxation policies need to be progressive, with clampdowns on tax avoidance.”
“I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, I would like her to clarify whether the scheme target group remains the same. In other words, is it still targeted at the bottom 20% of the elderly, with some support for those between 20% and 30%? Because lately, some of the collaterals, including replies that we have received from the agency, do not seem to mention this second group of those between the bottom 20% and 30%. So, I would like the Minister to clarify whether this group between the bottom 20% and 30% is still within the target of the scheme. The second supplementary question concerns sibling income. The Minister has earlier said that the Ministry will review from time to time the relevance of the means testing criteria. I would like to ask the Ministry to pay special attention to the consideration of sibling income, as the sibling would probably be of the same generation and also elderly, and if both of them are living together, it is likely that one or both of them do not really have other family support. So, it would be good for the scheme to look at those cases on a more generous basis.”
“I have got two clarifications actually for the Ministry of Communications and Information, so I am not sure whether Minister S Iswaran or Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will take them. The first clarification is that, in this recent incident involving NPHU, the organisation concerned is actually within MOH and, therefore, I would like confirmation that it does not come under the auspices of the PDPA. That is the first clarification. The second clarification is, earlier Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary went through the IM or some policy about how the public sector safeguards personal data and, if I heard him correctly, a lot of responsibility is placed on the department concerned to assess and come up with measures. My question is, in this recent incident involving the HIV leak, did any department outside MOH assess whether the arrangements that were in existence at the time when the breach occurred, whether the security arrangements were reasonable? Did anybody outside MOH come to any conclusion or inquire into the matter?”
“Two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, the Minister, in his answer earlier, mentioned that for members of the public who are aggrieved that their information has been mishandled by a public agency can always make a complaint. The question is: to whom? And the Minister mentioned that it could be to the Minister. Does the Minister not agree that the PDPC itself, which is focused on personal data protection, should have a role to receive such complaints because they are, after all, the domain expert on personal data protection? The second supplementary question is: Minister mentioned the issue of public sector agencies being interconnected and, therefore, there needs to be a different approach. But I think the SingHealth incident also illustrates some artificiality in what is actually happening in the healthcare sector. If we look at the setup of SingHealth, for example, no doubt, it is not under the definition of public agency under the PDPA. But the fact is that it is very connected to the Ministry of Health (MOH). In fact, it is owned by MOH Holdings, and there is a frequent, I believe, exchange of data between such healthcare bodies and the parent Ministry. So, it would come to a stage, does Minister not agree that, if my data is given to a clinic, for example, under a cluster, I may be able to complain to the PDPC, but once that data goes to the Ministry and the breach happens there, I do not have recourse under the PDPC? So, there is some artificiality in the distinction as far as the healthcare sector is concerned.”
“Perhaps the last question for now is that one of the things that the PDPA does provide is a complaints procedure which I would like the Minister to confirm that this is something that is very useful to the citizens, which does not force the citizens to commence a lawsuit against a Government agency should one suffer damage and so on. So, these are very real advantages of the PDPA which I believe citizens can benefit from.”