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 5 of 36.
“Thank you, Speaker. Sir, in this Budget, I and others born in or before 1973 have been called "young seniors". These days, when younger commuters give their seats up to me on the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), I no longer feel insulted but accept with grace. That said, with better life expectancy and health, 60 is the new 40. We still have much to contribute as citizens. Today, I wish to focus my speech on older workers and how we should be tapped on as a resource for the good of the nation. What can older people contribute? A lot. Last week, veteran Hollywood director Martin Scorsese won the prestigious honorary Golden Bear at the 74th Berlinale for lifetime achievement. For close to 60 years, Scorsese was at the helm of countless groundbreaking films, the latest being "Killers of the Flower Moon" released last year, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro. He announced that his next project would be a film on the life of Christ. All this, at age 81. Singapore, too, has its own role models. The late Ms Teresa Hsu Chih, who died at the ripe old age of 113, was dubbed Singapore's Mother Teresa. The retired nurse founded charities caring for the aged, the sick and destitute, and was still actively involved in charity work after turning 110. Sir, here, I hint at a cultural mindset that we need to change. Over the years, I have met many older residents whose job search suggests age discrimination. Let me take just one instance. There was a male resident who had decades of experience in healthcare management. He was well-groomed, communicated well and seemed fit. Yet, he found it near impossible to land an interview, let alone secure a job – in the same industry, healthcare – in positions either equivalent or less demanding than he had previously held. He was in his 70s.”
“In view of the limited class of offences involved, and the judicial safeguards I mentioned earlier, I feel constrained to offer my cautious support for it. Sir, let me conclude. I have highlighted in my speech three positive aspects of the Bill, regarding the release of persons before trial on personal bond, prosecution's duty to disclose materials and on compensation for crime victims. On the other hand, I have concerns about the role of auxiliary police in FMEs and the SEPP regime. I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications. Overall, the WP is in support of the Bill.”
“In addition, it seems from the Ministry’s pronouncements that the SEPP is targeted at a small handful of offenders who may have psychiatric disorders like paedophilia. Even so, I call on the Courts and the Ministry to be circumspect when assessing the clinical assessment reports, as they are not infallible. In addition, whether a person deemed dangerous at age 50 will be equally dangerous at age 70 deserves intense scrutiny. Sir, I wish to make one observation about an aspect that struck me when reading MinLaw’s press release on the Bill, and that is about offenders who are convicted of multiple offences. In two of the scenarios highlighted that were deemed possibly suitable for the SEPP, the offenders were sentenced by the Court to very long imprisonment terms of 40 years and 45 years for sexual offences against multiple victims. These very long jail terms were the result of the jail terms imposed for several charges being ordered by the Court to run consecutively, that is, some jail terms were added up, to run one after another. I pause here to note that 40-plus years is a much longer period of time than the currently proposed minimum detention period for the SEPP of five to 20 years. Therefore, in such cases of multiple charges, judges can already order the offender to spend the majority of their lives in jail, using long-established and accepted sentencing principles. This would, to me, be preferable and would attract less controversy than leaving it to the executive to determine when an offender should be released. Sir, all in all, the SEPP makes a difficult debate. I understand the rationale of protecting the public in the scenarios described.”
“I reiterate that the SEPP is a severe sentence that should be invoked only in the most extreme of circumstances and there are compelling reasons for this. First, even within the offences listed in the Seventh Schedule, such as those involving death or grievous hurt, these could arise in circumstances where the offender may not be dangerous in general. Such scenarios could include one-off incidents of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, or a case of a family member not taking steps to stop another person in the household from causing the death of a child or vulnerable person. In such cases, the usual sentence for the offences should suffice, as these sentences are what Parliament has approved as appropriate for the crimes concerned. Secondly, whether risk assessments are reliable or not has proven to be a real issue in other jurisdictions. Predictions of dangerousness, even by trained professionals, can be wrong. There is ample research literature in the United States (US) that predictions of future violence, more often than not, turn out cases which are "false positives" and that out of every three persons predicted to commit future violence, only one will do so. Although risk assessment tools have become more sophisticated over time, and some argue are more reliable today, the risk of false positives will always be there. We therefore run the risk of over-detaining someone based on a wrong prediction of dangerousness. In the case of the SEPP, the risk of over-detention is amplified because there is no definite release date. That said, I note the efforts by the Government to clearly scope the application of the SEPP. The SEPP provisions apply to a restricted class of offences.”
“The concern largely stems from the fact that even though the offender has been sentenced by the court to a minimum custody period of between five to 20 years, when precisely the offender will be released is subject to annual review by the Ministry; in fact, he may never be released if deemed to be still dangerous. Thus, an SEPP inmate could spend the rest of his life behind bars, based on a prediction. Under the proposed section 304B of the Code, an SEPP sentence could be imposed even on someone who is appearing before the Courts for the first time, with no prior criminal records. In assessing the SEPP, I note at the outset the following safeguards in the Bill. First, whether to invoke the SEPP would be decided by the sentencing Court and not the Ministry. The judge will make this decision aided by risk reports submitted by the Prosecution and also by the Defence. Secondly, the category of offences for which the SEPP may be invoked is circumscribed by the proposed Seventh Schedule. These offences generally include serious sexual crimes but also non-sexual violent crimes where death or grievous hurt is caused. Thirdly, even if the case falls within the Seventh Schedule, the judge need not invoke the SEPP and can instead decide to proceed with other sentences. The judge may assess that an SEPP sentence is not required to protect the public; or, as explained by sub-section 9 of section 304B, the judge may also decide that there are special reasons not to impose the SEPP, such as when a lesser sentence is adequate or when an SEPP sentence would be gravely disproportionate to the circumstances of the case. Sir, these judicial safeguards are very critical.”
“Sir, I next move to my areas of concern. I would like to highlight two areas: first, on one aspect of FMEs, and secondly, on the new SEPP. First, on FMEs. Clause 7 will introduce the new Part 4 Division 5 of the Code, which will govern FMEs. I note the framework set out for the conduct of FMEs both on victims and suspects. The provisions will facilitate obtaining evidence of high value to solve crimes, and include some safeguards to ensure that trained professionals conduct FMEs with regard to privacy concerns. Sir, the FME regime can be invasive, such as drawing samples from intimate body parts or drawing blood; they can also be non-invasive, such as drawing non-intimate body samples like head hair, urine or swabs of the mouth. In the case of non-invasive FMEs, the proposed section 40I provides that reasonable force can be used by authorised officers to extract the samples if the accused is uncooperative. Under the proposed section 40I(2), such an authorised officer includes an auxiliary police officer (APO). I am concerned about this. As we are aware, APOs are trained mainly to conduct security activities and to assist police in maintaining law and order. Involving APOs in the use of force to extract body samples from accused persons is a highly confrontational investigative process which carries significant risk. I would like to know how APOs are qualified or trained to perform such a task. Finally, on SEPP. There has been some public concern about the introduction of the SEPP – and justifiably so.”
“I had also highlighted that to address any concerns, conditions could be imposed when releasing a person on his own bond, such as reporting requirements, maintaining employment and so on. Clause 13 gives effect to this. Sir, I had suggested during the Justice Motion that pre-trial release on personal bond be looked into. This amendment goes towards levelling the playing field between the rich and the poor in the criminal justice process and I commend it. Next, codification of prosecution’s duty to disclose unused materials. Clause 23 introduces a new Part 10A to the Code, entitled "Prosecution’s Obligation to Serve Certain Materials on the Defence". The new provisions basically seek to import into the Code certain principles that have evolved through recent Court cases. During the debate in 2020 on the Justice Motion, the Leader of the Opposition had also suggested that codification of this obligation be done for greater clarity. By importing these principles into the CPC, it would be easier for law enforcement, Prosecution, Defence and also the general public to access them and to understand what is expected. Third, compensation orders for victims. The third improvement I would like to highlight is in clause 40. This concerns the Court’s powers in a criminal case to order compensation to the crime victim. Clause 40 amends section 359 of the Code to increase the chances of compensation being awarded in a criminal case. One change will be that if the court decides not to award compensation, it has to give its reasons for not doing so. Secondly, in a case where the offender has caused death, a dependant of the deceased victim can be awarded compensation for bereavement and funeral expenses. These are positive moves to ease the pain of victimisation.”
“Mr Speaker, the CPC amendment Bill proposes some significant changes to our criminal procedure. I will first talk about what I see as improvements and then touch on some provisions of concern. First, on the improvements. The three improvements I will touch on are first, pre-trial release on personal bond; second, codification of prosecution’s duty to disclose unused materials; and third, compensation orders for victims. First, on pre-trial release on personal bond. Sir, I am very pleased to see the change to enable more accused persons to be released while waiting for their trials. Clause 12 will amend section 93 of the Code, to make it more explicit that certain accused persons can be released on their own personal bonds and not need to find a bailor to post bail. This will apply at both the stage when the law enforcement agency is managing the case, as well as later, when the accused is charged in Court. Accused persons will be eligible to be released on personal bond if they are facing charges where the maximum imprisonment for the offence is not more than seven years. By making the option of being released on personal bond very explicit, it is likely that law enforcement agencies and the Court will release more accused persons on personal bond. This is especially meaningful for suspects who are poor and cannot find bailors of means to post bail for them. As I had highlighted during the debate on the Workers’ Party (WP)'s Justice Motion in November 2020, not being able to post bail will usually result in job loss and devastating consequences on the family. In addition, such pre-trial detention would affect the person’s ability to prepare his defence.”
“Last of all, the fifth reason I would offer is that with the setting up of this new task force on Resilience and Security of Digital Infrastructure and Services, I believe that its purpose is to oversee matters of public confidence. So, I would argue that there is a serious issue with public confidence and I think it is borne out by these factors that I have mentioned. And I also acknowledged the work done by the agencies – it is not that we are ignorant of such. Of course, we do appreciate it and realise that it is a big task and a 24/7 effort. So, Mr Speaker, I would argue that I believe I am entitled to my opinion, just as the Minister is entitled her opinion.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to respond to the Minister for Communications and Information's reference to what myself and my colleagues have mentioned about moving towards a crisis of confidence. First of all, I would like to state categorically that in my speech, I did not do so to politicise the issue or to create panic. My desire was to actually reflect what I see as the current sentiment in significant sections of the public. I would like to offer five reasons, if I may, on how I come to this opinion. First of all, according to the IMDA's Singapore Digital Society Report released in November, the statistics show that 99% of persons aged 60 and above are worried about becoming scam victims. Ninety-nine percent. That is almost 100% of the people in this age group who are worried about becoming scam victims. Secondly, today, during the course of the debate, we have also heard of MPs talking about residents ignoring official communications because they cannot tell whether this is authentically from the Government or if it is a scam message. So, messages to enrol in Healthier SG are ignored. Third, I think we all know the statistics of scam losses. As the Minister herself pointed out, the fact that there is so much public education now, may also lead to feelings of anxiety in the public, which I think are very real. Fourth, I myself have received feedback from members of the public who expressed the desire to take their accounts offline. These could include retirees, with their CPF transactions and so on. I do not think they are isolated incidents.”
“Nevertheless, for the reasons I have stated, my view is that it is incumbent upon the Government and businesses to spearhead this effort.”
“In March this year, the institute launched a petition calling for a pause in AI development beyond GPT-4. The petition gathered more than 33,000 signatures, including those of CEOs of AI companies. Some of the big questions identified for reflection include the following questions: (a) whether we should let machines flood our information channels with possible propaganda and untruth; (b) whether we should automate away all jobs including, the fulfilling ones; and (c) whether we should develop non-human minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart and replace us. Other prominent thinkers have cautioned that reliance on AI tools to process information and to think may result in the potential loss of human reasoning and analytical ability. Speaking for myself, I must say that the thought of major decision-making in the world being outsourced to AI tools is simply unacceptable. Moving forward, the need to harness AI and yet ensure humans are in charge will be the big challenge. Technology should be our servants and not our masters. We should take time to reflect on what is happening and not let technology run away unbridled with us in toll. To this end, having effective regulation for AI will require the Government to invest in constant capacity building. Sir, let me conclude. My speech today was on restoring trust in the digital arena. I have highlighted that online scams and the risk of AI have put trust under a microscope. The Motion today posits that a whole-of-nation approach should be taken to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society. I am able to support the Motion as I agree that everyone has a role to play.”
“In it, the report acknowledged both the vast potential of AI to do both good and bad. The bad aspects included how AI could amplify harms such as enabling scams using deepfakes, spreading this information and others. According to CNA, the prevalence of deepfake videos in Singapore jumped 500% in 2023 compared to the previous year. We should be acutely aware of AI's pitfalls and the need for AI regulation to ensure that Singaporeans remain safe online. Sir, I believe the Government is closely watching for the potential pitfalls of AI. It has set up the AI Verify Foundation, which published a discussion paper last year entitled, "Generative AI: Implications for Trust and Governance". The paper was stated to be targeted at senior leaders in Government and business, advocating for more discourse and collaboration on building an ecosystem for the trusted and responsible adoption of generative AI. Among the emergent risks of generative AI listed by the paper were the making of mistakes, copyright infringements and the spreading of toxicity and cyber threats. Apart from these emergent risks, the fact that AI will lead to drop losses and disinformation alone will erode public trust in the digital arena. Across the world, the fundamental question of whether human beings really want to go further with AI is being asked. There is growing concern about creating more powerful AI tools that may replace the human function and even control human interactions. The concern comes from those in the AI industry as well. For instance, there is a non-profit organisation based in the United States (US) called the Future of Life Institute. Its multidisciplinary international team engages in policy work aimed at improving AI governance.”
“Among other powers, the OCHA will enable law enforcement to proactively issue orders such as access blocking directions and app removal directions to require internet service providers to protect the public from scams and other malicious cyber activity. On OCHA, it would be good to know when all the provisions will be effective. In addition, I note the announcement by the Minister for Communications and Information on the setting up of a multi-agency group called the Task Force on Resilience and Security of Digital Infrastructure and Services – what I call the RSD task force. The work of the RSD task force is set to oversee matters of public confidence in the country's digital services. While the set-up of the RSD task force is an important development, I note that its stated composition does not mention any representative from the MAS. Since banking is such a big part of digital infrastructure and services, should MAS not be on the task force? Sir, my colleagues, Jamus Lim and Gerald Giam will elaborate more on scams and the sharing of responsibility later. I move on to artificial intelligence. Twenty twenty three is generally hailed as the year when ChatGPT came into the world's consciousness and everyone started exploring its potential. The focus is now shifting to how AI tools can be deployed at scale as AI develops in sophistication. From asking AI to carry out a specific task, AI tools have gone from classification AI to generative AI where content is created, like mimicking voices of loved ones. It has further developed into interactive AI where AI tools can interact with humans to reason and arrive at watershed decisions affecting work and personal lives. Last year, the Government published Singapore's National AI Strategy 2.0.”
“As stated in a Straits Times Forum page letter on 22 September, it is not always possible for people to be on full alert against scams as one's level of alertness could be affected by multi-tasking, stress, fatigue or medication. According to the IMDA's Singapore Digital Society Report last November, 78% of seniors over 60 used e-payments for online transactions but only 44% of the same group was moderately confident about identifying scams. Ninety-nine percent were worried about becoming victims of scams. These numbers show that the threat of scams is very real and that more needs to be done. Sir, I acknowledge that the Government is working on restoring confidence in the digital space. The MAS has been working on further regulating banks and more must be done on prevention and loss sharing. I have spoken on this previously and shall not repeat myself today. I have also made a submission to the MAS on the risk-sharing framework for scam losses. Sir, given the unequal bargaining power between banks and consumers, the MAS should be mindful that the public look to it as the bank regulator to ensure that banks behave responsibly and ethically. Over the last few months, I have received skeptical feedback from some members of the public that the banks' interests will always be protected at the expense of the customer. I hope that the MAS will demonstrate that this is not true. On the more general issue of digital communications and services, I acknowledge the potential of the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) to prevent scams.”
“have been effective in spoofing SMS messages typically sent by DBS Bank. On New Year's Day this year, I, too, received the SMS about the withdrawal of $289 from my Paylah! account and a link to stop the transaction if it was unauthorised. As I was in the midst of some work then, I did not scrutinise the message carefully and clicked on the link to stop the transaction. The link then brought me to a page to enter my banking credentials, whereupon I had my Eureka moment and stopped in my tracks. Not so fortunate were some residents who received the same SMS who then came to the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) in desperation. All in all, I have to conclude that these organised criminals must have very good consultants. Even modes of savings we thought were very safe, like our Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies and fixed deposits, are not safe against scams and malware. This is leading to a change in thinking about digital transactions. On this, I note that the "money lock" options now offered by the three local banks are a practical feature to ringfence funds that can only be withdrawn by a physical visit to the bank. I myself have opted for this. But from a helicopter perspective, "money lock" is actually a concession that the digital space is not that safe. I would not like to exaggerate the situation but I would say that we are moving towards a crisis of confidence in digital banking, without stronger intervention by Government regulators. Of course, customers need to do their part. Customers need to be wary and alert to prevent being scammed. However, we should be ever mindful not to expect too much from the public.”
“Mr Speaker, my topic today is about restoring trust in the digital arena to tackle a crisis of confidence. On restoring trust, I will touch on scams and AI. First, scams. I read with interest about an interview given by Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) Minister Josephine Teo to Lianhe Zaobao in December on MCI's priorities for this year. Among other things, she underscored the urgent and pressing need to restore confidence in the digital space and telecommunications. On scams and in particular scams through phone calls, Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has revealed that out of the 1.6 billion international calls received in Singapore each year, about a quarter or 300 million were suspected to be scam calls and were blocked by telcos in the first nine months of last year. To block 300 million calls is a staggering statistic. But I would surmise that many other scam calls would have gotten through. Our parents, residents and we ourselves are all in the pool of potential victims. Since I spoke this House in mid-September on scam losses and doing right by bank customers, the landscape has evolved further. On the positive side. I note that banks appear to be taking more steps to prevent scams and to stop scams in progress. I cannot over-emphasise why banks of all people need to do this. Banks are making healthy profits and have the resources and expertise to do more to protect and detect scams. At the same time, the modus operandi of scammers has continued to evolve and leverage on victim psyche. From impersonating Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and bank officers, they now impersonate officers from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Phishing scams involving Paylah!”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Acting Minister. Does he not agree that when we talk about utilities in the current climate, conservation is a key aspect of it. I think the Government has recognised this. We have seen recent statements about the need to conserve energy and water. In this respect, U-Save vouchers, no doubt they are appreciated by the residents who receive them, but it actually does not really encourage conservation of the utilities. So, I am just wondering whether the Acting Minister would agree that we may have to keep an open mind as to whether we need further tools to encourage residents to conserve on the use of utilities.”
“Thank you, Speaker, I feel compelled to clarify what Member Sitoh Yih Pin has attributed to me and I will clarify my own. My proposal actually for tiered electricity pricing is a revenue-neutral proposal. Most IBT systems are designed that way. So, it will be wrong of him to say that I am asking for more subsidies from the Government or raiding whatever fund to do that. The second proposal which I suggested was about time of use pricing. And I also mentioned that MTI is already in the process of giving financial incentives to households who consume electricity at off-peak hours and they are also doing that with business consumers already. So, unless the Member is saying that conserving energy is not important for Singapore and MTI is wrong, then I think he better make himself clear.”
“We could work towards a system where the electricity tariff for off-peak consumption for households is lower than the tariff for peak hour consumption. This allows households to manage their electricity costs by adjusting their time of use. Sir, in making these suggestions today, it is not my intention to over-simplify the issues associated with electricity pricing, which can be a rather technical matter. Nonetheless, with the concerns about global energy supply and costs looming in the horizon, this is an issue that deserves attention. Sir, let me conclude. Recent global conflicts and tensions have made Singapore even more vulnerable to rises in the prices of oil and gas, on which we rely for our energy needs. With 95% of our electricity generated from natural gas, Singaporean households are at risk of higher electricity bills. At the same time, as the Government has recently highlighted, imported supply uncertainties make it imperative for Singaporeans to conserve electricity. I believe household electricity costs can be managed through adjusting the electricity tariff structure, such as through tiered pricing and differential charging to encourage off-peak consumption. Such reforms would recognise that electricity is a basic good and yet, incentivise energy conservation.”
“Sir, my second point is for the Government to look at helping households manage electricity consumption through discouraging use at peak hours. This could be done by charging lower rates at non-peak hours. The EMA is already doing this for business consumers. Business consumers can make use of EMA's Demand Side Management (DSM) scheme to lower their electricity bills, by adjusting when and how much electricity they use. Businesses can participate in the Demand Response programme, where they can voluntarily reduce electricity usage when prices are high. Such behaviour also benefits the system, as it reduces the capacity required at peak periods. It is well-known that a key driver of the costs of producing electricity is not the total load, but the peak hour load. Having a cheaper rate for off-peak consumption would benefit the system as a whole, as it will go towards ensuring that the peak demand can be more efficiently met by the existing transmission grid. Can such differentiated peak and non-peak pricing be applied to households as well? Such time of use charging has been offered for decades around the world, in major cities including London, San Francisco and Sydney. What is its potential for Singapore households? Just last month, the Government announced a pilot scheme called Residential Demand Response programme, to be launched by the second half of next year. Under this pilot programme, Singaporean households will be issued with smart meters and will receive alerts to actively reduce consumption during peak hours, in exchange for financial reward, such as rebates. This scheme is, in effect, a differential pricing scheme based on time of use. The Government's planned financial incentives to reduce peak hour consumption could be further developed.”
“According to the Hong Kong Environment and Ecology Bureau, tiered pricing is deployed for residential consumers to "promote energy efficiency and conservation". Tiered tariffs can also be found in a host of other jurisdictions, including the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa. In fact, a World Bank study of 60 developed and developing countries showed that 60% of countries surveyed made use of tiered pricing or volumetric IBTs. The study noted that the rationale for a tiered pricing structure was to provide a "social safety net" whereby all consumers could assess a basic subsistence volume of consumption at a very affordable tariff, while ensuring that the revenue shortfall was covered by surcharges on the largest consumers. The study found that volumetric IBTs had "a material effect on affordability". Mr Speaker, I note that in a more recent Parliamentary answer to a question raised by Mr Don Wee last year, the Minister for Trade and Industry again rejected a tiered pricing approach. MTI stated that electricity should be priced at its "full cost of production and delivery" and warned of "inadvertent implications". The Minister gave an example of a multi-generational household paying more if they lived in a single home, than in two smaller homes. While this may be true, this phenomenon already exists in many Government policies. The larger, multi-generational household is already receiving less Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) and U-Save rebates, has less subsidies for long-term care, may be disqualified from the Silver Support Scheme and so on. There is probably no policy with perfect outcomes. So, let us not let perfect be enemy of the good.”
“In Singapore's context, one could set the threshold amounts, looking at the consumption patterns tracked by the EMA. Thus, for example, in deciding where to set the threshold amounts, one could take reference from the average consumption per month for 3-room HDB households, which is around 22 kWh. In 2010, then Senior Minister of State Iswaran responded that tiered pricing would amount to the Government essentially deciding what an "acceptable" level of electricity consumption is. I do not agree with this characterisation. What we would be doing is to encourage energy conservation by charging a lower rate for what is deemed a basic necessity. Tiered pricing of household electricity is used in many countries. To understand more about it, we could look to the benefits in several other countries where it has been implemented. One such example is China. In 2012, China rolled out a tiered electricity pricing system across 29 provinces, with three tiers. The specific levels differed, depending on the province, but generally, the lowest pricing tier aimed to capture about 80% of residential households. The second tier had 15% of households while the third highest tier covered the remaining 5%. A report by the China Economic Quarterly International showed that in the years following the implementation of tiered pricing, there was a 6.1% reduction in electricity consumption. Sir, while each jurisdiction will decide how to set their tiers, this example shows that tiered pricing can have a positive effect in reducing overall consumption. Another example is Hong Kong. Hong Kong has two major suppliers of household electricity, namely HK Electric and China Light and Power. Both of them offer tiered pricing, with as many as seven tiers. Small users pay preferential rates.”
“According to a report by the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, barriers to switching in the retail electricity market include complexity of the retail market and electricity tariffs, transaction costs, uncertainty of service quality and behavioural biases, among others. There is also the question of how viable it is to have many retailers competing for the relatively small domestic market in Singapore. As matters stand now, much uncertainty remains over the revamped open electricity market model. It is unclear whether consumers will benefit from the liberalisation of the electricity market and if so, to what extent. What, then, are the other options for managing household electricity bills? So far, a large part of the Government's answer has been to distribute U-Save vouchers, mainly to HDB households. While U-Save vouchers are useful, they are effectively taxpayer subsidies for certain types of households. As a complement to these measures, the Government could review its electricity tariff structures. In particular, I would ask the Government again to consider implementing a tiered pricing structure for household consumers. Further or alternatively, the Government should consider a pricing structure that is based on time of use that discourages electricity consumption at peak hours. Both of these have the potential to lower electricity costs for consumers. First, tiered pricing. Tiered pricing is known in some countries as increasing block tariffs (IBTs). Under such a system, households that consume electricity below a certain threshold would be charged at a lower rate, while those consuming higher amounts would pay higher rates for the excess consumption.”
“So, it would be far superior to allow the market to work, for us to give targeted subsidies to those who need it and when the market is fully liberalised, the players can then work out the schemes as we see in other sectors like telecoms." Sir, it was thus a key plank of the Government's strategy to bank on the open electricity market to manage electricity prices for consumers. Accordingly, the open electricity market for households was rolled out in 2018, to great fanfare. This did not last. As we are all acutely aware, six retailers have since exited the market. Many were under-hedged and were stuck with lower-priced fixed rate electricity contracts while energy prices rose unexpectedly. This drove them to a loss-making proposition, leaving them no choice but to exit the market. Today, most of the remaining retailers are backed by power generation companies while two others offer plans with only "marginal price differences from the regulated tariff". Sir, in the wake of the problems with the open electricity market, the EMA tightened its requirements for open electricity market retailers in July 2023. These tighter requirements include requiring a licensee to hedge at least 80% of their contracted retail demand, set up funds to pay for premature termination of contracts and so on. A CNA report from August this year observed that these additional requirements could result in higher prices for consumers. The uptake of price plans from retailers has also been slow. As of 1 March 2023, only 40.6% of residential units have adopted the retail price plan.”
“At that time, I raised the possibility of adopting a tiered pricing model, which would enable households who consumed moderate amounts of electricity to pay for usage at a lower rate, if their consumption did not exceed a certain threshold. Households who consumed electricity in excess of the threshold would pay for the excess at a higher rate. In rejecting my suggestion in 2008 and again in 2010, then Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) Senior Minister of State S Iswaran, argued that the Government intended to facilitate competition in household electricity pricing through opening the retail electricity market. The Government touted more flexible choices and "competitive pricing" with the new open electricity market for consumers. Please allow me to quote what then Senior Minister of State Iswaran said: "…in the long term, EMA is working towards opening up the household electricity market for competition so that consumers will be able to purchase electricity direct from different suppliers through a range of retail packages that they offer. Ms Lim asked whether the Government will allow such retail electricity sellers to use a tiered system. Once such a market is established, then we should leave it to the market to work out what are the different ways they can meet customer needs... If we were to introduce a tiered system today, it means Government is deciding what is an acceptable level of electricity consumption and establish that as the threshold... This is quite a problematic process in terms of determining the key levels of thresholds.”
“Mr Speaker, electricity is a basic necessity of modern living. However, as a small nation with few natural resources, we are forced to rely on others for our energy needs. According to the Energy Market Authority (EMA), 95% of our electricity is generated using imported natural gas. This leaves us vulnerable to global events, including rising gas prices, tensions in the Middle East and supply disruptions, which all may cause energy prices to spike unexpectedly. It is therefore in our national interest to conserve energy and diversify our energy sources. While the electricity tariff has experienced some ups and downs in recent quarters, the SP Group recently announced that electricity tariffs for the fourth quarter of this year would go up by 3.7% per kilowatt-hour (kWh), due to higher fuel costs. This, in turn, will result in higher electricity bills for households and small businesses, adding to the high costs of living that Singaporeans are struggling to grapple with. As far as electricity usage is concerned, our priorities should be encouraging energy conservation and managing costs for consumers. To this end, I have noted recent Government announcements, such as the setting up of Gasco to centralise gas procurement by next year, which has the potential to bring down the cost of gas for power generation. There is also a pilot initiative next year to offer rebates to consumers who reduce usage during peak hours. However, in my opinion, more can be done to one, encourage conservation of electricity; and two, lower costs for consumers. First, on the pricing of household electricity. About 15 years ago, in 2008, this House debated public concerns about high electricity prices.”
“Speaker, two further questions for the Minister of State. Earlier, the Minister of State mentioned that SRF, as proposed by MAS, covers only unauthorised transactions. Does he agree with me that even accepting that premise, so long as the banks fulfil the four obligations defined in the paper, even if the bank was negligent in some other way, the bank can actually push the liability down the waterfall? That is my first clarification. Secondly, I wonder whether he is prepared to clarify on this point: assuming the customers are not satisfied under the SRF framework and they have no choice but to go to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), can the banks rely on the four obligations in the framework to say that, "Well, under the framework, we have done these four tasks and the paper says that 100% liability goes to you, so, we would not offer you any settlement payments at all." Can they do this at FIDRec?”
“And then, I had to insist and special approval was then obtained from the branch manager to issue the token to me. I was also warned that it might be phased out in due course and they cannot assure me that this service would be available. So, I wonder whether the Minister of State is aware of this as well.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The waterfall approach that is described in the paper, of course, MAS acknowledges that it is actually quite drastically different from the approach being taken in the United Kingdom (UK), where there is going to be a default requirement for banks to compensate customers, unless the customer was fraudulent or grossly negligent. I wonder if he will agree with me that the waterfall approach can actually be seen as giving the banks a free pass, if they are able to tick the four boxes. That means to say, if they fulfil the four prescribed duties that are in the paper, they will not have to bear any losses, and based on the case studies in the paper, it appears to be so. So, I wonder whether he will agree with me that, in effect, this is what the waterfall approach will end up achieving for the banks. The second question is: he mentioned that the four obligations set out in the paper are already being implemented by the banks. I do not know whether fully or progressively. So, how different is it really from the current status of the banks fulfilling these duties, and is the Government concerned that many scam victims will remain uncompensated under the SRF framework? Thirdly, on the question of physical tokens, I have a Parliamentary Question No 44 on this topic, but I do not know why it was not grouped together. He mentioned that customers can request for physical tokens from the banks. I have received many emails from the public to say that this is not offered by their banks, they were told that it has been phased out. And I myself went to a local bank to request a hardware token. It was not easy. I was first told that it is not going to be issued.”
“Thank you, Sir. Just to clarify again – I wonder if she could, I do not know whether there are any operational issues – but whether she could confirm, whether the Chinese police authorities are actually assisting us in our investigation; and, secondly, about whether there have been any indications so far on whether they are making a claim on the assets seized?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Second Minister for Home Affairs. The first actually relates to something she said in her main speech about the red flags that alerted the authorities to this billion-dollar money laundering bust, if I can say it that way. She said that, in 2021, there were a few STRs filed by financial institutions and also by other companies. So, could she let us know which industries these other companies came from? Were there property agencies, were there law firms, for example? So, that is my first question to clarify where these other companies came from, that filed the STRs related to this case? The second clarification is this: several of the persons arrested and charged were reportedly wanted by Police authorities in China and it was in relation, I think, to possible organised crime activities by these people wanted by police in China. So, my question is, have the Chinese authorities been assisting us in our investigation in Singapore? And related to that, has there been any indication that any Chinese parties will be making a claim on any of the assets or funds that have been seized in Singapore?”
“— would make FIDReC a more serious option for larger claims. Sir, let me conclude. Mr Speaker, it is time for the Government to act swiftly and decisively on scam losses. Of paramount importance is ensuring that Singaporeans have confidence in their banking system and ensuring that those who have suffered a loss are fairly compensated. The draft framework for loss-sharing is overdue. I have also highlighted why requiring customers to bear losses when they were not grossly negligent would not be fair. The Government should consider developments in other jurisdictions such as the UK to ensure that banks bear the cost of reimbursing victims, as they are the best place to identify and prevent such scams. Other measures such as a return to physical tokens and ring-fencing funds from high-risk activities like cryptocurrencies should also be considered. Lastly, the Government should provide a framework to protect customers from unfair settlements and look at raising the monetary limit of FIDReC. I urge the Government to do its part to ensure that we do right by bank customers.”
“Sir, let me say something about the FIDReC option. There is currently a monetary limit of $100,000 per claim for FIDReC adjudication. Such a limit discourages those who have lost more from going to FIDReC. Should this monetary limit not be raised? Since the daily transfer limit for most customers for PayNow is $200,000 per day, would this limit not be more relevant to FIDReC today? Such a revision to FIDReC's monetary limit —”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When bank customers complain to their banks of the amount they lost to fraud, some banks will only offer them a small amount to solve the issue. Moreover, such offers are usually tied to signing an agreement of non-disclosure (NDAs) by the customer. This means that these customers are giving up their right to recover further sums in future. The unequal bargaining power between the banks and consumers is obvious from this situation. The Government should not take a hands-off approach. Instead, the Government should roll out regulations for banks to comply with. (In English): Sir, while I agree that the MAS cannot micromanage the banks, can it do more than issue a motherhood statement that MAS expects the banks to treat their customers fairly? At present, banks in Singapore have published a voluntary Code of Consumer Banking Practice. Under paragraph 3B of the Code, fairness is a key principle in resolving a dispute between the consumer and the bank. However, as a voluntary code, it lacks regulatory bite. I urge the MAS to consider adopting regulatory guidelines to enshrine fairness as a key principle in the settlement of consumer disputes, especially in relation to scams. Some possible guidelines include banning the use of onerous practices such as blanket NDAs, which require customers to give up legitimate claims to recover monies. Customers should also be given full disclosure about their rights and forms of recourse against the bank. Perhaps the MAS could consider prescribing clauses in agreements that do not prejudice customers. Sir, in some cases where customers have complained to the MAS about settlements being unfair, these customers have been asked to approach FIDReC instead for assistance.”
“Imposing mandatory delays, transfer limits and additional authentication could go a long way towards preventing customer monies from being siphoned off by fraudsters. Sir, vulnerable customers are another category to watch out for. Added verification steps and longer mandatory waiting periods should also be implemented where the transaction involves a vulnerable client, such as an elderly or mentally impaired person. Banks should adopt closer scrutiny over transactions from such accounts, mandating lower transfer limits and longer waiting times by default. Sir, I acknowledge that the measures I have suggested may cause inconvenience to some customers. For all these measures, banks can provide customers the option to opt out of these safeguards provided that they are sufficiently aware of the risk. Next, policy solution three – safeguarding customers from unfair settlements. Mr Speaker, some of us have received feedback from scam victims about how their banks try to settle their complaints. First, the sums offered as goodwill payments may be paltry in relation to the loss. Moreover, such offers are usually tied to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) which are onerous and one-sided, requiring absolute secrecy from the customer and requiring the customer to forgo all rights to recover further sums. The one-sidedness of such arrangements was also alluded to by Member Yeo Wan Ling in a Parliamentary Question filed in November last year. Sir, the MAS has made it clear that it did not intend to regulate settlements. However, the unequal bargaining power between the banks and consumers is obvious. Will the MAS stand by if desperate customers are being bulldozed and bullied? A hands-off approach by the MAS is unacceptable. On this issue, please let me elaborate in Chinese.”
“Banks had also been consulted as part of the process as early as 2021, being part of the Payments Council. Sir, given the delay in the publication of this framework, many scam victims have been left without recourse under the loss-sharing framework by no fault of their own. Accordingly, I urge the Government to ensure that these victims will be allowed to have their claims adjudicated fairly under the framework. Next, policy suggestion two – additional safeguards for bank customers. Mr Speaker, a further measure that can help us fight scams is the reintroduction of physical tokens as a default measure for two-factor authentication (2FA). Today, most banks only offer these on request and have a digital token or SMS verification as the default option for 2FA. This means that the mobile phone becomes the single source of vulnerability. Should the phone be infected with malware, 2FA does not, in effect, act as a second degree of authentication. As pointed out by Ms Irene Tham in her article last week, experts believe that it is time to resurrect hardware tokens, which are standalone devices apart from the phone. MAS should advise banks to promote the physical tokens as the default option. I also asked the Government to consider implementing additional verification checks where a customer transfers money to bank accounts of entities associated with cryptocurrencies or digital payment tokens (DPTs). To be fair, the MAS has recognised the risk involved with DPTs and has sought to regulate consumer access to DPTs. I urge them to further consider regulating transfers to bank accounts associated with DPT service providers. DPTs carry a higher risk of dissipation and are more difficult to trace, especially when transferred to wallets around the globe.”
“According to a senior official of UK bank TSB, having to reimburse customers for online fraud has incentivised it to be more proactive in detecting and preventing scams from the outset, resulting in less fraud. To state the obvious, prevention is preferable to reimbursement as it stops the problem at its root. As more jurisdictions adopt such measures, international banks will not baulk at such requirements or see Singapore as an outlier if it adopted similar measures. Sir, I also wish to address the concern about individual responsibility. While the MAS did note that bank customers have the responsibility to take necessary precautions, it cautioned that compensation paid should not weaken the incentive for all to be vigilant. The reimbursement model still retains an element of individual responsibility as there will be no reimbursement where a customer is grossly negligent. However, the point remains that individual responsibility alone is insufficient to combat these increasingly sophisticated and malicious scams. Mr Speaker, I also urge the Government to consider ensuring that the loss-sharing framework applies retrospectively. While there is a general presumption that the laws should not apply retrospectively, this is a specific instance where it should. The Court of Appeal has explained in the case of ABU vs Comptroller of Income Tax that retrospective legislation is undesirable because it imposes penalties or other disadvantages without fair warning and undermines expectations. However, I would argue that this would not apply here, given that banks have been put on notice since the MAS informed the banks of a desire to implement a loss-sharing framework in February 2022, or one and a half years ago.”
“It is noteworthy that the UK is a major financial centre and is prepared to take this tough stance against the banks. What about other jurisdictions? Australia is also reportedly considering adopting similar measures. Meanwhile, the European Commission (EC) too has moved on this. In July this year, the EC proposed granting a refund to victims of authorised push payment fraud in certain circumstances as part of revisions to the EU payments directive. Sir, I believe that this solution can and should be implemented in Singapore. It could cover all transfers between banks in Singapore via the FAST and PayNow systems. Like the UK system, it could be scoped to protect customers who are consumers, small businesses and charities. This would give Singaporeans the confidence to transact using these methods without fear that their savings would be unknowingly syphoned off. It would also ensure that victims of these scams will be compensated in a timely manner without having to undergo a complex adjudication process. Sir, while some may argue that this would be unfair to the banks, I disagree. As I mentioned earlier, banks are best placed to identify and detect suspicious transactions such as when a customer's bank account is emptied over a short time, transfer limits are quickly changed, and new payees are added. A cost-benefit analysis by the UK Payment Systems Regulator has also shown that the reimbursement model would incentivise payment service providers to improve the detection and prevention of fraud. This finding seems to resonate with banks who have been reimbursing customers who have been scammed.”
“Having emphasised why the banks should take the lead in combating scams, I shall move on to three policy solutions the Government should consider. The first suggestion looks at how some other jurisdictions are protecting consumers. The second deals with some additional safeguards that the Government should require of banks. Thirdly, I will argue why the Government should not take a hands-off approach when banks enter settlement agreements with affected customers. First, policy suggestions and what some other jurisdictions are doing to protect consumers. Mr Speaker, I urge the Government to consider the solution used in the United Kingdom (UK). From next year, banks in the UK will be required by law to fully reimburse scam victims. This will apply except in cases where the customer was fraudulent or grossly negligent or the transaction involved cryptocurrency or international payments. The mandatory reimbursement would cover payments through their Faster Payment platform in situations we are familiar with such as customers being tricked into transferring money, customers clicking on fake advertisements on social media, customers who were phished or hacked despite precautions and customers who were groomed over time such as love scams. The solution for such mandatory reimbursement is simpler and quicker. It will generally not require a time-consuming and resource-intensive adjudication process for each case. Sir, the UK payments regulator has explained how this would work. It would be limited only to certain types of domestic payments, with both the sending and receiving payment providers each sharing half of the reimbursement. These providers would have to do so within five business days.”
“First and fundamentally, consumers are not sufficiently equipped to combat scams. Fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated and can now take control of a customer's phone and obtain their bank login details through the clicking of a malicious link. Even the most technologically savvy person could easily make this mistake and within a day, have their life savings wiped out. While education and outreach efforts may go some way to mitigating this, it will always be playing catch up with these organised criminals. With their increasing sophistry, targeting prey through social engineering, does the targeted person really stand a chance? Second, deciding in each case what is equitable will take time and may be irrelevant to the more vulnerable in our society. According to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), which oversees many such disputes, most cases are resolved within six months. For a family whose life savings have been wiped out, this would be an inordinate and stressful delay. Further, forcing certain vulnerable groups such as the elderly to confront a big bank would be far from ideal. On a practical level, it would be difficult for them to gather and present evidence to prove that they have taken necessary precautions as will be required by the MAS. Lastly, as to who should lead in combating scams, banks are best positioned and the best resourced to do so. Therefore, banks should take an outsized role in preventing them. Banks are able to monitor transactions, block suspicious payment flows and keep abreast of the latest technological developments. Such endeavours are beyond the remit of most bank customers.”
“Before I proceed further, it is only fair to acknowledge the efforts by multiple agencies to address the scourge of scams. Among these efforts, the most visible are the scaled up public education and the setting up of the Anti-Scam Command and Anti-Scam Centre, with collaboration between law enforcement and banks. I have also come across cases where banks managed to contact customers quickly and were able to stop a transaction before it was completed. But such success is, I believe, relatively rare. On the specific question of who should bear the loss of scams, we understand from a Parliamentary answer in May that the MAS intended to issue a public consultation on a framework for the equitable sharing of losses in the third quarter of this year. This was the latest update to the House after pushing back the publication date for more than a year, citing the complexity of the issues. No doubt one such issue is likely the wide typology of scam victims, from those who are tricked by half-baked schemes to the tech savvy who inadvertently loaded malware onto their phones. That said, the first clarification I would like to seek is – is the time frame for releasing the consultation by third quarter of this year, that is, by this month or two weeks from now, still on track? If it is not, then what is causing the delay and by when can the paper be released? Sir, while the draft framework has not yet been published, the MAS has previously indicated that bank customers have a responsibility to take necessary precautions and should be expected to bear the proportion of the loss depending on whether and how the party has fallen short of its responsibilities. Sir, this is inadequate and unjust for three reasons.”
“Mr Speaker, financial scams have become a major issue affecting Singaporeans. According to the Police's annual statistics for 2022, reported cases of scam and cyber crime increased by 25% year on year, totalling nearly 33,700 cases or 92 reports per day. Many more may have gone unreported. Criminals are also becoming increasingly sophisticated and even more technologically savvy young adults are falling prey to these scams. On the human level, the suffering caused by such scams is devastating. As Members of Parliament, we see too many residents who have lost large sums, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In most cases, lost monies are unlikely to be recovered. The losses suffered by each victim are not just measured in monetary terms, that is, how much was lost; but also measured by the impact of that loss on the individual or the family, on persons with serious health issues, on retirees, on those with mouths to feed, on the vulnerable. When it comes to scams, the Government and, in particular, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has consistently said that it expects banks to treat its customers fairly. Well, what exactly does the MAS expect of banks and how does it exercise its supervisory power? For the customers, what recourse or support does the Government provide to them? That is the focus of my Motion today. In a Straits Times opinion piece last Thursday, 14 September, technology editor Irene Tham opined that in order to fight scams, we may have to ditch some practices that make transactions easy. She pointed out that among others, banks needed to start accepting more responsibility. Consumers too may have to put up with some inconvenience to keep online dealings secure. In my view, the Government, as the regulator, also needs to step up.”
“Thank you, Speaker, for letting me ask another clarification. To the Prime Minister and, perhaps, to Mr Chan as well, I think the issue of whether the Prime Minister's concurrence is required for any CPIB investigation is an important question. I have tried to search for the legal basis for that, but I cannot find any section which actually says that the Director of CPIB has to get the Prime Minister's concurrence. The Prevention of Corruption Act talks about seeking concurrence from the Public Prosecutor, but the Prime Minister is actually not mentioned in the legal provisions, as far as I can find. So, may I get clarification as to whether it is just customary because CPIB comes under the Prime Minister's Office, that is, CPIB would inform the Prime Minister of such? Minister Chan did say he is going to make a clarification on this point. So, I would like to know when that will happen.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Two clarifications for the Prime Minister, please. I do not think Prime Minister has answered the question as to why it took so long to make arrangements to hand over the residents of Kembangan-Chai Chee to others in Marine Parade GRC, from February to July. He has not answered why it takes so long. The second clarification is that I wonder whether he will agree with me that the period from February to July actually was quite momentous, many things happened in Parliament. We had Budget debate, Committee of Supply, Parliament was prorogued, Parliament reopened. There were Sittings in April and May, and some of us even went with the former Speaker on official trips overseas. So, does he not think that this inordinate delay to settle the matter is really highly regrettable, because it gives a false impression to all of us here, to the general public and even to the outside world?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for the Leader on what she explained to us earlier. She said that she communicated with the former Speaker Mr Tan on her view that whatever he expressed that was caught on the hot mic deserved a formal apology in the House and he has duly given it. I would like her to clarify whether in doing so, she was purporting to exercise any authority on the matter as the Leader, because he was the Speaker of the House at the time and we do understand that the Speaker is the master of the Chamber, he has the power to punish us, but it is a question mark as to who has the power to punish him, if there is any unparliamentary conduct. From the brief research that I have done in other countries, if such a thing was to happen, it is backbenchers filing a Motion of regret that is the usual thing done. So, I would like to ask the Leader if her communication with Mr Tan to extract that apology, is she purporting to exercise authority over him or is it using her power of persuasion?”
“He once said, "I want to be remembered as a person who felt that there was no limitation to what the human body and mind can do and be the inspiration to lead people to do things they never hoped to do." Sports do that – uplifting all of us in good times and bad. For the pride and joy that our national athletes have brought us, we can do this bit more for them. [Applause.]”
“Even a further subsidy of just 10% or 20% more would be a powerful signal that society has not forgotten about them and respects their sacrifice and service. To this end, I call for the setting up of a multidisciplinary task force. The task force will work on a scheme to give additional subsidies to former national athletes for their treatment costs for sports-related conditions so long as the treatment is sought in our public healthcare institutions. To manage the cost to the national budget, the scheme should be scoped in terms of who should qualify and what the quantum of subsidies should be. As for the composition of the task force, I would suggest the inclusion of medical and sports science scholars and professionals who would advise on the types of injuries and conditions that are associated with competitive sports. It should also include Government officials from the relevant agencies, such as SportSG and the Ministries of Health and Finance. Madam, as a side note, it has been suggested to me that in speaking on this topic on our retired athletes, I should declare an interest as my partner is a former and retired sports star. I can assure the House and the public that I have no pecuniary interest in this matter as he pays his own medical bills. Madam, let me conclude. In my speech, I have focused on how we should do right for our national athletes in terms of supporting their healthcare needs over their lifetimes. As a citizen of Singapore, I do not wish to see our sporting heroes worry about their medical bills. I believe we should look seriously into providing lifetime medical subsidies for our national athletes. I wish to conclude by quoting the American running legend, Carl Lewis.”
“Even so, the injuries and their long-term impact on function and quality of life remain. A friend of mine who used to be a national hockey player, reflected on his life and the injuries he sustained and concluded that it was simply not worth it. Madam, the contributions of our national athletes are beyond reimbursements and compensations. While they commit to sporting excellence, their careers and other life decisions may be put on hold. Their education may get delayed and they may lose work or business opportunities in the prime of their lives. It will also not be possible to trace back the amount of personal and family resources ploughed into training and getting to the levels they have achieved. So, what can the country do? There is one low-hanging fruit that I think we can and must do. Provide all national athletes with medical subsidies for the duration of their lifetimes. Such a gesture is appropriate as it acknowledges the physical toil that highly competitive sports take on one's well-being and that it is only right that society contributes more to those who have served to bring glory to the nation on the world stage. Since our national athletes are covered while serving, these subsidies should kick in after they have retired from representing Singapore. As to who should qualify for such coverage, this should be further discussed. One possibility is to include Singaporeans who have represented the nation in any internationally recognised sport for at least a year. As to how to peg the amount of subsidies, this should be worked out. What is important is that the subsidies lessen the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses of former national athletes, compared to other citizens.”
“The injuries do not just go away when one stops competing. One lives with them. More is also known today about latent injuries that emerge long after one's sporting days are over. There is an increasing concern, especially in contact and collision sports, about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a type of dementia caused by repeated head injuries that affect the brain's function over time. In a 2022 study, researchers found that players of contact sports, such as American football, rugby and soccer, were 68 times more likely to develop CTE than those who were not. In fact, a group of former English and Welsh rugby players have initiated a class action lawsuit against their respective rugby governing bodies, asserting that they failed to protect players sufficiently in the sport, with many ending up with dementia or CTE later in life. This knowledge has led to concerns amongst sporting bodies across the world and some have implemented changes to the rules of training and sports to reduce the risk to athletes. So, how well covered are our national athletes against such long-term or latent injuries? When I asked a Parliamentary Question in January on insurance coverage for national athletes, the basic answer from the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth is that the coverage is there while the athlete is still representing Singapore. Based on what we know now about sports injuries which are latent or have lifelong consequences, covering athletes only when they represent Singapore is clearly inadequate. There is a joke about the Football Association of Singapore in this context – that FAS stands for "Forget After Service". To be fair to the FAS, we have noted their recent efforts to provide career support to former players, which is a step in the right direction.”