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 2 of 36.
“Sir, my point is that the Leader is now touching on what the WP is doing to follow up on the judgment. So, I wonder what has that got to do with the resolutions?”
“Yes. Earlier, you had advised all Members to stick to the matters involved in the resolutions. I wonder, what the Leader has been saying, what has it got to do with the resolutions?”
“Thank you, Sir. Perhaps, one more supplementary question. I am not sure whether I heard the Minister of State correctly. When I asked about whether the agencies could have uncovered the suspicious circumstances earlier, he mentioned something to the effect that the parents engaged the adoption agencies on a commercial basis. So, is he saying that there is nothing more that the agencies can do to try to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? I mean, the parents, really, what can they do?”
“Given this unique situation, where the parents are innocent, really, can the agencies give a special exception to allow these expenses of these affected families to be incurred on a Singapore child basis, to take into account the fact that they have applied for citizenship and it is on hold because of something outside of their control. I would like to ask the Minister of State these questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. He mentioned that the investigations by the Indonesians are underway, and I think our Government is cooperating with them, something along those lines. Is he able to give any indication of the timeline as to how long this will take? I have constituents affected by this situation and they have already been caring for these babies for more than a year and this uncertainty is a torture to them. So, would the authorities in Singapore be able to give any indication of how long this is going to take – months or years. This is really quite devastating. The second question is, there is an issue of, perhaps, public confidence in the adoption process. These parents in Singapore are innocent parties that have done every step in accordance with the law. And I think the MSF officers and their partners have also looked into each adoption case before recommending to the Court whether the case could be supported and, on that basis, the adoption orders were given. So, my question is, was there any possibility that the MSF officers or its partners could have discovered any suspicious circumstances before the orders were made? And the third question actually concerns expenses in child raising. In the case which I know of, the adoption order has been given but the child's application for citizenship is on hold now because of this investigation. Because of this, the parents will have to incur childcare expenses and so on, based on the foreign nationality of the child.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one question for the Minister. It was reported in July that the Minister in his capacity in the MAS had announced that there was an intention to shorten the process of registration for family offices, I think, from 12 months to three months, to make it faster for these offices to open bank accounts and to claim their tax incentives. So, I am just trying to understand whether this shortened process means that banks would have less time to do their due diligence? And in that sense, there is a possibly increased risk that money laundering indications could slip under the radar, in a sense.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. Earlier she mentioned Operation FRONTIER+, which is supposed to be a cross-border collaboration across jurisdictions for joint intel sharing as well as joint ops. My question is that she mentioned there are 13 jurisdictions under the platform. For the recent joint operation with Cambodia in September which I mentioned in my speech, it was not mentioned that it is under FRONTIER+. So, does this mean that Cambodia has actually not signed on to FRONTIER+?”
“This definition is inexact and potentially includes almost everyone, including family members, colleagues and acquaintances. What is the intended ambit of the definition of "related person"? Sir, the third query relates to the use of illustrations to clarify the law. There is an illustration clarifying that the doxxing offence would be made out where the false statement and the identity information were carried in two separate online posts. However, this illustration is found in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill and is not part of the text of the law. I would like to know why the illustration is not legislated together with section 14E but instead is relegated to the Explanatory Statement. It would seem to me to be more appropriate to carry the illustration upfront in the law itself, to make it clearly visible to anyone looking up the law in the future. Instead, having it in the Explanatory Statement makes it harder to locate and may lead to unnecessary arguments down the road. Sir, let me conclude. The Bill confronts us with decisions about the use of caning as a judicial punishment. In view of the devastating harms scammers have caused and continue to cause to Singaporean families, I believe the public supports the amendments regarding scam offences. At the same time, there is a concerted effort in the Bill to remove or reduce the use of caning for various other offences. This is a move I fully endorse, as we work to scope our criminal laws more tightly and appropriately. Finally, I look forward to the answers to the questions I have posed regarding regional cooperation and other approaches to disrupt scam organisations and on the offence of doxxing of public servants.”
“Sir, even after the Bill is passed, I hope the Government will, from time to time, review offences which currently attract caning to see if caning is still warranted. Social conditions change over time, and our laws should be fit for purpose. Singapore is currently on a short list of about 30 countries that still have corporal punishment on its criminal statutes. Of course, we must decide for ourselves what is appropriate for our criminal justice system. That said, I believe Singaporeans will support a criminal justice system that is effective and at the same time, humane. Finally, doxxing of public servants. Clause 25 creates a new offence in the Miscellaneous Offences Act of doxxing of public servants. Under the proposed section 14E, it will be an offence for anyone to publish identity information and false statements about public servants, if connected to the discharge of their duties. I have three questions related to this. First, the section will apply to protect public servants. As to who would be considered a public servant, the proposed definition refers to the definition of public servant in the Penal Code, as well as any person who, under other written laws, is deemed a public servant for the purposes of the Penal Code. If so, would someone holding a political position, such as a Minister or Member of Parliament (MP), be covered under the section? Second, the section prohibits the publication of identity information, not just about the public servant but also a "related person". The definition of "related person" is stated as "another person about whose safety or well-being the (public servant) would reasonably be expected to be seriously concerned".”
“While it is a legacy of our colonial past, it is a punishment where the state inflicts violence and physical pain on a prisoner. From reported accounts of some who underwent the punishment, caning led them to bleed and by some accounts, to suffer such pain that it led them to go into a state of shock. Sir, I accept that there is a strong imperative to curb scams and it could well be at the stage now when we have to pull out all the stops. In that light, could the Ministry elaborate on why it has assessed that caning will be effective to reduce scam activity? Did the Ministry consider alternatives, such as providing for longer jail terms and heavier fines? This brings me to my second point which is related. I strongly welcome the reduction in the use of caning for other offences. The Bill proposes the total removal of caning as a punishment for certain offences and for others, making caning optional instead of mandatory. In its press release on 14 October, the Ministry stated that it made these moves considering factors such as whether the offences were still of significant public concern and whether other punishments sufficed. This review – to remove unnecessary punishments – brings important balance to this Bill. The amendments proposed to the Vandalism Act are particularly significant and welcome. The Bill removes the rigidity of the current Act, where mandatory caning of between three to eight strokes must be imposed on vandalism of both public and private property, except in limited circumstances. The Bill instead proposes that mandatory caning be removed for all vandalism offences. Instead, caning will exist as an option for the Court, in cases where the vandalism is deemed more serious.”
“Sir, it is public knowledge that Southeast Asia is a hotbed for organised scam groups and some ASEAN countries are reported to be where the main operations are located. To respond to this, some governments are using other tools besides the criminal law. Two months ago, the American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, issued a statement highlighting that "criminal actors across Southeast Asia" had, and I quote, "increasingly exploited the vulnerabilities of Americans online", resulting in an estimated loss of US$10 billion last year. He announced that the American government would impose sanctions on various persons and entities involved in running a scam centre in Myanmar and forced labour compounds in Cambodia. He opined that the sanctions would have the effect of disrupting the ability of the criminal networks to perpetuate their fraudulent and abusive activities. To that end, it would be useful to know to what extent the Singapore Government will also consider other tools outside the criminal law to disrupt such organised scam groups. The Bill also introduces caning as an additional option in scam cases involving the misuse of Singpass credentials under the Computer Misuse Act. The same is being done under the Miscellaneous Offences Act for scams involving the misuse of SIM cards. As for cheating under the Penal Code, there will be mandatory caning if done through remote communications, such as the Internet, telephone or electronic or other technology. Sir, the most significant aspect of all the scam-related amendments is the introduction of caning as a punishment. Given the tremendous material loss and psychological harm caused to scam victims, I have little sympathy for those who perpetrate these cruel acts. That said, the sentence of caning is a harsh punishment.”
“Besides setting high fines and jail time of up to five years, mandatory caning of at least six strokes is to be imposed. How effective the provisions will be will depend on how tightly they can be enforced – no point having strict laws if offenders are not pursued. It is also likely that even if persons are caught, offender displacement will occur – meaning that there will be no shortage of persons willing to replace them, if the rewards are lucrative enough. For organised scams, effective enforcement will require agencies across borders to share information and conduct joint operations as well. At this point, it is not clear to me how committed every government in Southeast Asia is towards combatting scams. In the past week, there was extensive media coverage on a scam ring in Cambodia, apparently led by a Singaporean and staffed by scores of compatriots. It was reported that the Cambodian police conducted a joint operation with Singapore Police on 9 September, after which 15 suspects, including 12 Singaporeans, were arrested and charged here. It was further reported that Cambodian police found evidence of the involvement of other suspects and this evidence formed the basis for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to issue INTERPOL Red Notices against them. While the handling of this case so far shows strong cross-border cooperation, I wonder if such extensive cooperation happens on a regular basis. Further, does the Ministry expect in future to utilise the expanded powers under the Extradition Act to request the Association for Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) neighbours to hand over such suspects to Singapore through extradition?”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill makes significant changes to 17 of our criminal statutes. Overall, I am supportive of the Bill. I wish to speak today on two matters that I find most significant: first, on tackling scams; second, on the reduction in the use of caning for other offences. I also have some queries on the new offence of doxxing of public servants. My party colleague, Member Fadli Fawzi, will speak later on related issues and other aspects of the Bill. First, on tackling scams. It is clear that despite significant efforts poured into anti-scam measures, Singaporeans are still falling prey to scams and losing significant sums. Banks have made efforts to strengthen digital banking to detect and delay unusual transactions. Public education has intensified: there is now even an anti-scam warning on the Parliament website. But scammers, too, have raised their game. Scam organisations are brilliant at social engineering and tailoring their ruses to suit the intended victim. Scammers are going further. In one case I came across, the scammers even coached the victim as to what to tell Police if she was questioned, which she dutifully complied with, as if under some sort of spell. Clearly, we are dealing with highly sophisticated operators. Sir, the Bill has 19 provisions that are targeted at scam offences. Although there are existing laws to cover these situations, the new provisions create new specific offences or enhance the punishment if they are committed through scams. For instance, the Organised Crime Act is being amended to create two new offences; of being a member of a locally linked organised scam group and being a recruiter for organised scam groups, whether locally linked or not.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State of MND. Earlier on, when he said that the CRU officers do not have special powers, I just wanted to understand what he meant by that. Because under the Act as we amended last year, they do have actually special powers, legal powers anyway, under the provisions of the Bill that we passed last year. For example, they can issue orders on the spot and so on, so I wonder whether he could clarify that point, what he meant by CRU officers do not have special powers. The other question is that he quoted my speech earlier about the fact that, and of course I do recognise that the work is not going to be easy, but I did say, perhaps erroneously last year that the CRU had standby officers after office hours. I believe I was wrong on that point, because it was later clarified that the CRU does not work after office hours, so I would like him to clarify that on that point.”
“It came on automatically just now, so I trusted the system, but maybe, I should not. Sir, on the Member's two clarifications, first of all, I made it clear in my speech that we respect the outcome of the elections. So, that was stated explicitly. Secondly, by citing the example of what I saw in the UK, it is not that I aspire to another system, but I believe our system can still do better, as I said. And as I mentioned, what was most striking to me was that momentary expression of trust in each other. In the last few days, I see some flashes of that, but I hope it can be sustained. So, it is not that I aspire to another system, but I would want to be part of the effort to make our system even more robust.”
“At the very minimum, we should remember that all colleagues here are fellow Singaporeans who have made a choice to leave our comfort zones to take up national office. Let us start from a position that a fellow MP has a good motivation, though we may disagree with the position he or she is taking and should take the issue on. If we can do that, I believe Singaporeans will benefit from a focus on the issues that matter. Sir, let me conclude. Our system of Government expects Parliament to play its role to ensure good governance. All of us here are competitors but not enemies. The people have elected us to act on their behalf, to ensure Singapore endures for the long term, to work towards a Singapore built to last. On this, Sir, we have common cause.”
“On our part as opposition MPs, we are expected to take an independent line, question the Government and vote against proposals when we deem it necessary. Speaking from experience, this is not easy, especially when one is surrounded and vastly outnumbered. But that is our obligation and that is what voters expect us to do. We will play our part to build a Parliament that the people trust. We are cautiously optimistic that our Parliamentary system has potential to do better. Sir, earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending a parliamentary sitting in the United Kingdom (UK), in the House of Commons in Westminster. Many of us would have seen television footage of somewhat rowdy sessions from the UK Parliament and strong exchanges between opposite benches. But I realise, now, that such scenes do not tell the whole story. What I saw that day was a Minister from the Labour government painstakingly explaining an urgent matter that had just taken place over the weekend in London – how the British police had upheld democratic values while policing a mass protest over the situation in Gaza. What was more striking to me was the response of the Shadow Minister from the Conservative Party. He rose to ask for an assurance from his political opponent – the Minister – stating that if that particular Minister gave the assurance, he would accept it. That moment set me thinking hard. Political competitors, yet able to give each other some credit and credibility. That is my hope for our Parliament, too. Politics is competitive, but why are we in this? I would like to believe that the main motivation is a calling to serve the public in elected office, a calling that is most meaningful and noble. In this term of Parliament, I hope we can build trust in the House as well.”
“One key sub-indicator is whether government powers are effectively limited by the legislature. That is where Parliament comes in. On this issue, our score is not respectable. The Singapore Parliament is ranked 104 out of 142 National Parliaments. Among high income countries, we are second last. In contrast, our Courts appear to be doing well as a check on the government, being ranked 17th out of 142 countries. Sir, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth but as a point for introspection. We should honestly examine why there is an independent, multi-disciplinary opinion that our Parliament is not effective in limiting government powers. Of course, one likely reason is the balance in Parliament between different political parties, or should I say imbalance, with almost 90% of the seats in the hands of the ruling party. This is the result of our system design and Singaporeans' votes on Polling Day. We respect the outcome of the elections. That said, it is a fact that in the House, the Government agenda is set by the leaders of the ruling party and party discipline demands that ruling party MPs vote in support of the Government agenda. But we should be mindful that, as MPs, our overriding duty is not to our parties, but to Singaporeans. Regardless of our affiliation, we have a duty to speak for our constituents and ensure that this Chamber works for them. This means questioning the Government and holding it to account, rigorously, if necessary. On the Government's part, it should always demonstrate that it is sharing as much information as possible in the House. And in the long run, it is Singaporeans who need to decide if the balance of power in the House should be changed.”
“To give a bit of background, the World Justice Project declares itself as an independent, multi-disciplinary organisation that seeks to advance the rule of law worldwide. The Project reviews countries around the world to assess each country's laws, institutions, norms and community commitment to the rule of law. The outcomes it is interested in centre around four principles: accountability, just law, open government and accessible and impartial justice. It believes these principles are universal. I do not think anyone in this House will disagree that these principles apply to us as well. In assessing the state of the rule of law, the World Justice Project examines each country on various indicators. In its latest overall ranking in 2024, Singapore was ranked 16 out of 142 countries, which is, overall, respectable. When we look across the different sub-indicators for Singapore, what sticks out is that we have largely healthy scores around six out of eight indicators. The two indicators where we do not do so well are in the factors called Open Government and Constraints on Government Powers. I believe this has been our consistent scorecard from the World Justice Project for many years. Such a mixed scorecard should also come as no surprise. In measuring Open Government, the index looks into matters, such as how much information is shared by the government with the public and whether citizens have a right to information. Open Government also measures public accountability, whether there are effective complaint mechanisms and how far the people are empowered with the tools to hold the government accountable. As for the factor of Constraints on Government Powers, it is concerned with how far those who govern are bound by law.”
“Mr Speaker, it has been four months since the last General Election (GE). As we commence this new term of Parliament, I note that there are 31 Members who are entering Parliament for the first time. I am privileged to be here for my fifth term. There are quite a few others who have been here longer, including Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his 10th term – more than 40 years. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to give my personal welcome to the newly-minted Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the House. One of the themes in the President's address is about trust. Some Ministers have, in past days, also emphasised the importance of trust in institutions. Today, I wish to say a few words about trust in one of the key institutions we have – this Chamber, Parliament. All of us here gained entry through a competitive process, that is, we contested in the recent elections to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans. Fundamentally, party politics is a competitive process which pits one party against another. Yes, elections involve a zero-sum game: one vote for you means one less vote for me. But once the dust of elections has settled, we are entrusted to represent our constituents. How can we best do so? On a broader level, how does one measure the effectiveness of a Parliament? To answer this question, one needs to return to the purpose of Parliament in the first place. One respected index that covers this issue is the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project compiles an index that the Singapore Government frequently cites for its high rankings of Singapore in the area of Order and Security.”
“We will also continue to improve the setting – because whoever you are, we want to take care of you, and we want to make sure that you have a meaningful rehabilitation and reintegration journey.”
“Definitely, they are worried about the healthcare of their loved ones. SPS would try their best to address the issues. If there are needs relating to their medicine or even the care that they require, SPS will do so. Nevertheless, we must recognise that the majority of our inmates have drug addiction matters, so the medicine that we give have to be appropriate for them. So, sometimes you may hear, "I would like to have stronger medicine" and so on. But I want to assure Members that our doctors and our healthcare staff are very much attuned to the needs of the inmates. The Member also mentioned about the judgment that has been made. Essentially, we maintain that we have an adequate healthcare system and protocol. But the judge will have to decide based on the facts of the case. And we have, as the Member quoted, the external placement scheme. I think it is an option that Prisons can take on and this is not something relating to what Prisons can decide. We have a medical advisory panel and we have an external placement review board. And we have done so; we have had cases where we have allowed the person to go on such a scheme. Essentially, I want to assure the Member that we will look after our inmates. They are fellow human beings; they need the care. But if we cannot take care of them within the prison set-up, we will work with the PHIs. And it is not only PHIs which are close to us. If there are needs that you cannot find in a certain PHI, we will go to a setting that is more appropriate. For those who may need additional support or the circumstances vary, we have the external placement scheme. At the end of the day, you need not worry how your loved ones as well as your constituents will be looked after when they enter the prison.”
“So, I wonder if he could confirm whether the Minister has actually ever exercised this power since the provision came into force. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, as I have shared earlier, our healthcare delivery system is aligned to the national standards. Maybe the Member is not aware of what we have in place. We have medical care protocols in place and a healthcare system that can manage inmates with varying conditions. I work very closely with Prisons and I have come across many of such cases, including those with serious and complex medical conditions, such as those requiring dialysis, active chemotherapy and radiotherapy, stroke or post-operative care. And also, we have established infection control protocols in place that are aligned with standards practised in the PHIs. Healthcare staff in SPS also adhere to infection control standards, such as observing all the different protocols. Practically, you will find the standards very similar to what you can get outside. We also have negative pressure cells for infection control, for example, COVID-19 or even tuberculosis. To that extent, ours is not something very different from what you see outside. We are also subjected to inspection or audits by the Ministry of Health regularly. What we also do is that we make our medical centre relevant. For example, we have the electronic medical records and we have telemedicine, which we enhanced. We also have things in relation to how we provide opportunities for those with chronic illnesses; we even have dialysis machines. So, we will continue to make sure that we provide the necessary healthcare standards to our inmates. At times, I receive messages or emails from the loved ones of our inmates.”
“Thank you, Speaker. So, I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State on this matter. First, I would like to understand more about the Ministry's response to the recent sentencing judgment in Mr Ong Beng Seng's case. Because in the judgment, it was found by the sentencing judge that, as mentioned by the Senior Minister of State, SPS has an adequate healthcare system to manage inmates with complex and serious medical conditions in conjunction with the public healthcare institutions. But that does not address the enhanced risk of potentially fatal infections and falls. So, based on what Senior Minister of State said earlier, does he accept that there is no way that Prisons can actually address this concern of the Courts with regard to potentially fatal infections and falls? The second question is, I would like to have his affirmation that, in the public interest, the law should apply evenly to everyone and there should not be any perception that ill health is seen as a licence to commit crimes and escape punishment. So, to that extent, the Ministry and SPS should always review whether its facilities should be enhanced to care for, perhaps, even more complex healthcare situations, as healthcare technology improves. And last of all, on a broader level in handling prisoners with serious health conditions, I understand from the Prisons Act that there is an option – if the Court were to sentence a seriously ill prisoner to imprisonment, there is an option for the Minister to actually issue an external placement order, meaning that he orders the Commissioner of Prisons to move the inmate to a more suitable place in view of the inmate's, perhaps, terminal illness, and so on.”
“Speaker, I would like to ask supplementary questions for Question No 11. I raised my hand. May I ask some supplementary questions?”
“Sir, I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State and it is about roof seepage cases. Some of the recent cases that we have encountered appear to be linked to HDB's project to install solar panels on the roofs. So, I wonder whether the Senior Minister of State is aware of this and whether she can comment on what HDB is doing, going forward, to try to minimise this sort of problems.”
“Thank you, Sir. One more supplementary question for the Minister of State. She mentioned in her answer that the number of foreign mothers giving birth to Singaporean children who are not already PRs or LTVP+ holders is small, less than 10%. I think as she correctly acknowledged, we are all in this together. Every Singaporean child born is precious to us. So, given that the numbers are not large, according to what the Ministry has just said, then I think there is scope for us to review, to see how we can better support, financially at least, the delivery episodes of these mothers who are holders of LTVP or less Passes.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First, I have asked for the figures from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for the answer to this, so I do not know, but does the Ministry of Health (MOH) also acknowledge that there is a significant number of Singaporean children being born to foreign mothers who are not holders of PR or LTVP+ but LTVP itself or less. So, does MOH acknowledge that fact? Secondly, it is a national priority for us to increase our total fertility rate (TFR). So, if we look at the cost differential for foreign mothers giving birth to Singapore Citizens who are not holders of PR or LTVP+, does MOH not find that the total bill size is significantly higher than that for LTVP+ or PR mothers, in the sense that it works against our aim to increase our TFR, because the cost is just too high? And finally, if we were to consider extending further support to this group of foreign mothers who are not PRs or LTVP+ holders, I think we are looking at probably a limited number of people and these delivery episodes are once in a lifetime, maybe twice. So, are we not able to afford to look into this?”
“Thank you, Sir, for your indulgence to re-clarify with Minister of State Rahayu. Earlier she, she mentioned that citizen level subsidies would be available for delivery by foreign mothers if they are PRs or LTVP+ holders, in consideration of the fact that the child will be a Singapore Citizen. But I think she will also know that there are Singapore children also being born to mothers who are LTVP, but not plus. So, can that not also be considered in the fee setting?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for Minister of State Rahayu about the cut on maternity fees which I filed. I filed this actually based on some ground feedback that came to me from my residents who are Singaporean fathers-to-be but their wives are foreigners. They may be holding LTVP, not plus, or something lesser. And from our research on the KK Women's and Children's Hospital website, it does appear that the maternity fees that are charged are actually tied to the residency status of the mother. So, I do not know whether earlier, because I did not hear her that carefully, was the Minister of State Rahayu saying that somehow the father's status as a Singaporean can be taken into account to reduce the maternity fees in such situations? Because I did not hear that very clearly and I would like her to clarify that.”
“Madam, I request MOH to review the cost differentials for these foreign mothers of Singaporean children.”
“Madam, Singapore's total fertility rate stands at 0.97, yet delivery costs vary widely by maternal nationality. Foreign mothers married to Singaporean fathers whose children will be Singaporean by birth, face significantly higher expenses. At KK Women's and Children's Hospital, a normal delivery in a C class ward cost Singaporean mothers $1,390, which is fully MediSave covered. Permanent Residents (PRs) pay $2,870, with most of it MediSave claimable and $120 being payable in cash. Non-resident mothers must pay more than $8,000, claiming less than $3,000 from MediSave and paying about $5,300 in cash. The gap widens for Caesarean deliveries. Singaporeans pay about $2,270, fully MediSave covered. PRs pay nearly $5,000, of which $410 must be paid in cash, and non-Residents pay nearly $12,000, with about $7,300 in cash. Many C-sections are unplanned emergencies, compounding financial stress. Given Singapore's low fertility rate, it seems counterproductive to impose such steep delivery fees on families whose children are Singaporeans from birth. Indeed, these costs send the wrong signals that Singaporean children are not welcome if their mothers are foreign. This burden is heavier for citizen father, foreign mother families. The 2019 SG LEED study found that these families have the lowest per capita income at about $1,700 compared to citizen couples at about $2,600 and citizen mother, foreign father families at $3,100. Furthermore, 17% of foreign mothers with Singaporean children still held a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP), despite being married for an average of eight years. The Government's stance, as indicated in November, is that foreign spouses who do not qualify for PR can apply for LTVP or LTVP+, showing no defined pathway to permanent residency.”
“I suggest that nominations made by married persons that exclude the spouse should be witnessed by the spouses to be valid so that spousal consent is in effect obtained. Enhancing CPF Returns”
“Sir, for CPF members born in 1958 or after, who have not set aside their minimum sums, they can only withdraw $5,000 from their Ordinary Accounts (OA) when they reach 55. This is unlike the earlier cohorts who could withdraw a percentage of their OA savings at 55. This limit of $5,000 has been applicable since 2013, that is, for the past 12 years, and there is no indication of any change in the horizon. I believe a review should be considered. As we are aware, persons aged between 55 and 65 may face employment disruption or ill health, whether themselves or in their spouses or parents. Having some extra cash may be critical during this period. How much can $5,000 do at today's cost of living? It is worth pointing out that, in contrast, the Minimum Sums to be locked into the Retirement Account rise with each cohort of Singaporeans based on their birth year. Should we not also have increases in the sum withdrawal at age 55 with each cohort to recognise the impact of inflation over time? My second point concerns CPF nominations. As explained in my Budget speech on 27 February, the concern is mainly about homemakers being left without inheriting any of their late spouses' CPF balances. This happens when the deceased's spouse has made nominations naming other persons as beneficiaries. 6.15 pm As mentioned then, CPF savings built-up during marriage are classified as matrimonial assets that are subject to division during a divorce. A non-working spouse is regularly awarded a share of the spouse's CPF savings in a divorce. All the more then, a non-working spouse that sticks it out in a marriage till death should not be deprived of her spouse's CPF savings.”
“Chairman, I have two clarifications for Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling on my cut on scams, which she touched on briefly. First, she mentioned the whole-of-Government efforts through the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Scams (IMCS). I read that MTI is also represented on that committee. So, I would like to understand a little bit more on what is MTI's interest and contribution so far to the work of the IMCS. That is the first question. The second question is: of course, underlying my cut is the issue of consumer protection because as far as scams are concerned, we often find that the consumer is actually dealing with service providers like banks, telecommunications companies (telcos) and social media companies, and there is some unequal bargaining power there. So, I would like to understand whether the CCCS is actually looking into this area. Is it doing anything in the field of online scams to protect consumers or to do some standard setting?”
“Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister. First, I found what he said about the overall accountability of Ministers very interesting. He mentioned that the two Ministers involved would have this incident taken into account by the Prime Minister in his assessment of their overall performance. But the fact is the Prime Minister is the Minister for Finance and ACRA is a Statutory Board within the Ministry of Finance. So, how does that work as far as the Prime Minister is concerned? Because he is also overall responsible for ACRA, in that sense. The second clarification is about the report's shortcoming number six, which talks about shortcomings in incident management after the public concerns were raised on 12 December. I am personally aware that it is a reality in the Civil Service, and probably private sector, that in December, there are many staff that are on annual leave, we expect them to clear their leave. And December is usually a time when there are less staff around. So, I would like to ask him whether this aspect of key decision-makers not being so readily available, did it feature at all in causing any delays in the incident response? And does he think that this could be a potential issue, even if it is not an issue in this case?”
“Consumers need a stronger advocate in their fight against scams. Accordingly, I believe that the Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCS) is best placed to take on such a central role with a focus on consumer rights. CCCS is a statutory board and has the power and legal authority to set and enforce national consumer protection standards. Critically, it will be able to protect consumer rights across a range of sectors and be a single point of contact for scam victims seeking redress. This has recently been done in Australia with the passage of the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025. The Bill established the framework within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and under the supervision of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. As noted by the Minister at the Second Reading of that Bill, the legislation operates across a whole range of sectors, including social media platforms, and allows consumers to look at a trusted, centralised point within Government. Sir, consumers bear the brunt of online scams and should be at the centre of prevention, detection, recovery and enforcement strategies. Our approach would be strengthened by having a centralised consumer protection agency, like CCCS, set and enforce such standards across a range of sectors. E-commerce”
“Chairman, my cut today is focused on consumer protection for online scams. As to why I am filing this card for MTI instead of other more obviously connected Ministries, this is because I believe that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore can play a major role in this area. At the outset, I wish to acknowledge the work of the different agencies, some around the clock, to prevent, detect, disrupt and respond to online scams. Some of my own residents were saved from losses due to interventions during ongoing transactions. However, as consumers continue to lose a record amount of money to scams across a wider range of sectors and to increasingly sophisticated criminals, an overarching body to set and enforce standards and protections for consumers will be desirable over the current sector-specific and somewhat fragmented approach. For example, the Shared Responsibility Framework falls under the purview of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). However, as an integrated financial regulator with a focus on prudential oversight and supervision of the financial services sector, it would be difficult to expect the MAS to also protect and enforce consumer rights. Consumer complaints are often directed to channels, such as the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDRec) or the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), but both have limitations, including in enforcement. Further, the current approach also means that solutions like the Shared Responsibility Framework, which is currently limited to phishing scams, only apply to banks and telcos. With investment scams and job scams making up 29% and 14% of all scam losses in 2024, the Government will constantly have to play catch up with evolving scam methodologies across various sectors.”
“Thank you, Sir. So, just to follow up, I would just like to know whether there are ongoing efforts to train our officers involved on the new provision and how to apply it in applicable cases.”
“Thank you, Chair. I have two clarifications for Minister of State Murali on the Criminal Procedure Code amendments on pre-trial release. Earlier, he mentioned that under the new provisions that were effective on 1 August, about 100 persons had been released on personal bond instead of on bail. I would like him to confirm that this is actually the combined number from law enforcement, as well as the Courts. That is the first question. And the second question is if that is the case, this means that if it is 100 persons over six months, it is only about 16 persons per month, which to me is quite a low figure. And to this end, can he confirm that there are ongoing efforts to train, especially our law enforcement agencies, on the use of this new provision?”
“In this regard, it would be good to understand whether there are ground outreach efforts to creatives to promote understanding of their IP rights. In addition, how are MinLaw and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) tackling the copyright challenges posed by AI. Protecting Creators' IP in Age of AI”
“Chairman, in Singapore, pursuing a creative career can be difficult due to the challenge of earning a stable living. However, it is vital that Singaporean artists, writers, filmmakers and other creatives can lead meaningful livelihoods and help support the growth of Singapore's artistic and cultural landscape. To that end, I have come across many creatives, such as film producers and photographers, who do not fully understand their rights, especially when it comes to the intellectual property (IP). Many are unaware that under the Copyright Act 2021, the IP rights in their creations automatically belong to them even if they were paid for that work. This is a crucial gap in knowledge that must be addressed. This becomes more urgent and important with the rise of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), which has led to the unauthorised use of copyrighted materials for profit-driven purposes. The recent open statement from Singapore's literary community to the National Library Board, signed by at least 88 local creatives, reflects growing concern over the lack of regard for copyrighted works and its potential impact on the vitality and viability of pursuing an artistic career. Besides promoting education and awareness, the Government can also consider introducing regulations on AI models to better level the playing field between AI developers and creatives. Some jurisdictions have started on this. For example, the European Union's (EU's) AI Act compels Gen AI models to demonstrate compliance with the EU's copyright law and provide a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training their models. Such obligations empower copyright-holders to exercise their rights by opting out of having their works used in text and data mining.”
“Sir, a person facing investigations or criminal charges may need to wait several months or even years before his case is concluded. I have seen how some lower-income Singaporeans struggle with this. A simple parking violation that usually attracts an out-of-Court composition fine is not paid, eventually leading to a Court hearing that requires a bailor. Failure to find a bailor will lead to pre-trial custody, which often leads to job loss or disruption of education, plunging the whole family into a much more precarious situation. I had previously raised this issue during the Justice System Motion in November 2020. To that end, I was very encouraged when the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was amended last year to expressly require the law enforcement agency or judge to consider releasing a person charged with a less serious offence on his personal bond without the need for a bailor. Sir, the new provisions of section 93(1A) and section 93(1C) of the CPC, which came into force on 1 August 2024, after more than six months, it will be opportune to find out if there are significant outcomes to date. Are there indications from the law enforcement agencies that more eligible persons are being released on personal bond? Similarly, for those charged in Court, are there similar indications from the Courts that more accused persons are now being released on personal bond?”
“Sir, recently, I came across senior citizens who had problems trying to renew their driving licences after they reached 65 when they needed to submit medical reports. Some of them could not recall receiving letters from the Traffic Police about the matter. Others recounted receiving the letters, but explained that they had problems using Singpass to attach their medical reports or had tried unsuccessfully to seek clarification through emails to the Traffic Police (TP). From my observations, a driver whose licence has expired may not be aware of this. The problem becomes incurable when the licence has lapsed for three years or more. Under the Road Traffic Act, such a licence cannot be renewed and the driver has to retake the relevant competency test. This came as a shock to some residents. I feel that this area deserves review in two aspects. First, could the age at which medical reports are required be moved to a later age? With better nutrition and health, and Singaporeans working longer, we could look at requiring medical examinations later. In Australia, for instance, the age requirement is generally 75 or even 80. Second, it would be better if TP could issue a final letter to seniors once their driving licences have expired for two years. The letter should remind them that if they do not renew their licence within the next one year, they will not be able to do so. This would be an important safeguard. Racial and Religious Harmony”
“Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification on Myanmar and ASEAN. Under the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus, there seems to be a heavy reliance on the special envoy being appointed to possibly mediate between the parties, to visit the parties in Myanmar. It has been pointed out by commentators that one of the difficulties is that because of the annual rotation of country chair in ASEAN, a new special envoy is appointed each year and it seems that the work sort of starts all over again. It has been suggested that one of the reforms that could be considered is that ASEAN might set up a permanent secretariat that is dedicated to Myanmar, with staff that specialise in the issue and can provide more institutional memory and support to the special envoy. I wonder whether that is something that we are pushing for or has been considered.”
“Doing so, according to the Minister, supports Singapore's survival and prosperity. Could the Minister elaborate on how he intends to apply these principles to working more effectively with various parties and strengthening ASEAN mechanisms to facilitate peace in Myanmar and support the country's future reconstruction? ASEAN and Myanmar”
“Madam, the Myanmar civil war is now entering its fifth year. Causalities continue to mount. The United Nations for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 15 million people face acute food insecurity and 3.5 million people are internally displaced due to the conflict. This comes on top of thousands killed and imprisoned. The break down in governance has created permissive conditions for organised crime to fester, including scam and fraud operations that affect Singaporeans. Today's world is already unstable and dangerous enough as it is. To have one more area of insecurity that is so close to home, only makes already difficult circumstances complicated for Singapore. The current situation looks dire. ASEAN's Five-Point Consensus has been criticised for its slow implementation, which is not helped by the complex situation in Myanmar and the deep distrust between the warring parties. It has been noted that the Five-Point Consensus does not have a formal way to engage all the major warring parties and seems to provide fuel, if any, incentives for the military junta to restrain from access or negotiate an end to violence with other parties. From time to time, reports point to Singapore-based firms having alleged complicity in the bloodshed in Myanmar even though the agencies here are reportedly trying to address the issue. Such conditions may even challenge the ability of ASEAN and its members, including Singapore, to work for a post-conflict Myanmar. The Minister for Foreign Affairs repeated on multiple occasions that Singapore stands on principle. They include supporting a rules-based order, supporting international law, finding common cause with as many partners as possible and cooperating with our close neighbours.”
“Thank you, Sir, for your indulgence. Just to respond that under the Standing Orders, a Member may be precluded from filing a question again if it is deemed to have been fully answered. So, that decision, sometimes there is a tussle between the relevant officers and Members about this. And last of all, regarding the urgency of the Insurance (Amendment) Bill, of course, to note that the deal has been aborted, so I do not know whether the parties felt that they were inadequately listened to, so I do not know the answer to that. But, Sir, in any event, there are clearly many interesting issues that we can talk about Parliament and its functioning. And I would hope that there is common cause that all of us want Parliament to be effective. And with that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”
“But the Constitution already provides for the Prime Minister to appoint Ministers to attend PCMR meetings to give that perspective to PCMR members. So, there is no need for Ministers to be members of PCMR for their voices to be heard. Does she not agree with me that the system design, if PCMR is supposed to be an independent check on legislation, having Ministers on PCMR actually does not look quite right?”
“Okay, thank you, Sir. I have three clarifications for the Minister based on the three topics which are raised. First, on the Government deciding which Ministry should answer the question, does the Leader of the House not agree that sometimes questions can cut across more than one Ministry and the MP actually would be the one to know what is the focus of the question. And, therefore, is it not possible for there to be a procedure where there is some loop back to the MP to ask the MP, "Alright, we intend to redirect it to another Ministry. Do you have any concerns about it?" Then, at least, our input can be taken into account. So, that is the first clarification. The second topic I raised on legislative process, actually, I think the Leader of the House kind of missed the main issue, which was that, as pointed out by the Deputy Speaker at that Sitting, the Insurance (Amendment) Bill was a hybrid Bill that directly affected particular parties. And under the Standing Orders, it is supposed to be the norm that if there are such Bills, then a Select Committee has to be formed so that Parliament can hear directly from the affected parties on how the proposed Bill would affect them. In this situation, we are talking about a really important social issue and the MPs were deprived of that opportunity to hear from the parties because the Certificate of Urgency was issued. And therefore, the Bills were just passed without the Select Committee procedure being activated. So, I think, to that extent, Parliament has been prejudiced. Last of all, about PCMR. Actually, what the Minister answered was already pre-empted in my speech. She said that having members with knowledge of why particular Bills were passed or the legislative history would be helpful to PCMR.”