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 7 of 36.
“Madam, I have got clarification for Minister of State Faishal on the eligibility criteria for HDB rental housing. Earlier in his speech, he mentioned that there is no household income ceiling as such but the application will be assessed holistically. However, if you were to look at the HDB website today, there is still a mention of this $1,500 household income as most applicants fulfilling this criterion. So, I have two questions relating to this. First, why is the $1,500 figure still mentioned on the website? What is the purpose of it? And secondly, in our experience residents have been turned away from the scheme because their income exceeded that threshold. So, could he share some information with us about the flexibility HDB has exercised? For example, how many households have they approved to go onto the public rental scheme that have exceeded this income ceiling, or some other data for us to understand the flexibility aspect better? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. Like what I have shared earlier, there is no income ceiling of $1,500. We have approved cases where the proposed tenants or the applicants earned more than $1,500. So, it is not one but a fair bit of percentage. Let me just double check what is the percentage. I had the number earlier. For example, in 2022 alone, 27% of the applications we approved were for those applicants having an income of more than $1,500. Essentially, we look at it from a holistic point of view: the household size, the background and whether they have any housing options and so forth. The amount that we shared on the website that Member referred to, let me read, it states here. So, your income will be used to assess your housing budget and option.”
“It has been announced that there will be improvements in lighting and ventilation of new rental blocks. A separate initiative proposes to mix rental flats with owner-occupied flats. These are welcome moves and I hope the Government will continue to look for ways to both improve the quality of rental housing and reduce the stigma of living in the rental flats. Related to this, I would like to ask two questions. First, moving forward, would HDB consider reviewing the household income cut-off for rental flats, to say, $2,500 per month? Secondly, would HDB look into providing larger flats, say 3-room flats, under the Public Rental Scheme? Rental Housing for Singles and Families”
“Chairman. During last month’s debates on HDB housing, it was acknowledged by MND that some families were not ready to buy HDB flats as they first needed to build up their finances. There are also other families who used to own flats, but due to disruptions such as divorce or business failure, ended up losing their homes. HDB rental housing is a valued option for such families and individuals. From what I have seen from my Meet-the-People Sessions, the demand for rental housing is very high. HDB’s eligibility criteria for rental flats are understandably strict. Most applicants must have household incomes of not more than $1,500 per month. Singles must be aged 35 or older before they can apply to co-share with another tenant. If one is approved, the waiting time for allocation of flats is about eight months. The sizes of the flats available under the Public Rental Scheme (PRS) are restricted to one-room flats and two-room flats. From my observations, these parameters lead to hardship on two fronts. First, the economics. A household earning above $1,500 to say, $2,500 may not be able to afford other housing options. Rentals in the open market are unaffordable. As for purchasing a flat, much depends on one’s CPF savings, age and ability to work. Secondly, living conditions. Rental blocks have many more flat units. Though the flats may be small, this does not translate into smaller household sizes. The small size of flats means that families may be not able to confine their belongings to the unit itself, resulting in possessions being placed along the common corridors, affecting the living environment and becoming potential fire hazards. I note that HDB’s recent initiatives to improve living conditions.”
“As for vaccinations, I note from a Parliamentary answer in July 2022 to my colleague Ms He Ting Ru that there are about six vaccine candidates in development. The most advanced of these is a dengue vaccine by Takeda, Takoo 3 – a tetravalent vaccine targeting all four dengue serotypes. What is the status of its evaluation by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA)? Finally, early diagnosis and medical attention would help prevent serious health conditions and death. For our residents, seeking treatment first at the nearest general practitioner (GP) clinic is the quickest option. How high is the threshold for symptoms before a dengue blood test is conducted? I also understand that these tests are not cheap and I would ask the Government to consider a subsidy for such tests if a doctor deems it fit to order them. Project Wolbachia”
“Sir, after rising by six times year on year in 2022 to over 30,000 cases, dengue fever is expected to remain a serious health risk this year. The National Environment Agency (NEA) said in December that a rise in the high number of dengue cases at the end of the year could result in Singapore entering this year with an atypically large number of dengue cases. Dengue fever is not new to us. As such, some of us may have a complacent mindset and overlook the fact that the dengue virus is debilitating and can be fatal. Clearly, a multi-pronged approach is urgently needed to tackle the environmental factors of mosquito breeding, alongside medical solutions or precautions to better protect people living in Singapore from this scourge. On eradicating mosquito breeding, we owe our gratitude to the teams deployed by NEA for their intense ground inspections. There may be some inspection fatigue felt by residents living in dengue clusters as they are subject to repeated inspections. However, these checks are needed for public health and the well-being of the community. Hence, cooperation from residents is much needed. Apart from source eradication, what is the state of the other strategies? For instance, Project Wolbachia has been around since 2016 and expanded in phases. The earliest smaller phases have shown positive results in drastically suppressing the Aedes aegypti mosquito population and reducing the number of dengue cases, for example, in Tampines and Yishun. Given that it takes at least a year from the Wolbachia-Aedes mosquito release to suppress the mosquito population, how long will it take for Project Wolbachia to cover all residential areas?”
“There are opportunities for Singapore to pioneer, pilot and grow silver industry players that may in time export these goods and services to other countries facing the same demographic challenge. How is the Government catalysing the potential of the Silver Economy? Biotech Industry”
“Sir, across the world, we see exciting innovations catering to the needs and well-being of seniors. These range from technology to monitor health conditions at home, to senior-friendly food, to robotic pet dogs that keep lonely seniors mentally and emotionally engaged. Singapore is one of the most rapidly ageing societies in the world and faces a manpower shortage in the care sector. While various agencies such as the MOH, GovTech and IMDA have led the way in certain areas, can more be done to collaborate with the private sector and encourage local enterprises and startups to expand into such technology? There is some evidence that the testing and tailoring of aged care innovations could bring about profits for local businesses. For example, a Singaporean-based company called SilverActivities designs and evaluates games, applications and devices suited primarily for seniors. Their products are designed to stimulate, train and preserve the seniors' cognitive functions such as memory, problem-solving, language and learning. Nursing homes have given glowing testimonials of their products. Companies such as SilverActivities have the potential to expand out into international markets when the time is right. In a recent blog article published by Enterprise Singapore entitled "Silver economy: Is the business of ageing a sunrise industry?", the author pointed out that in the Asia Pacific region, the silver economy market was projected to be worth US$4.6 trillion by 2025, just two years from now. Market opportunities were identified to be in telemedicine, healthtech, elderly nutrition and assisted living.”
“Madam, I do believe that this discussion should continue, but in the interest of time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $357,286,100 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $70,333,900 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Madam. I have two clarifications for Minister. Minister, last November, the Chief Justice revealed in a speech he made at the Supreme Court that when a Judge approached 65 years of age, he would ordinarily be offered an extension to continue in office till the age of 68. So, my question is, if this is ordinarily being offered to Judges upon reaching 65, why not simply extend the retirement age to 70, since "ordinarily", there will be an extension of the term of office? The second clarification is that he mentioned that some Judges might want to leave the Court at 65, they may have other plans and so on. But is it not possible to design the system such that the tenure ends at 70, but Judges can have the election of retiring at 65 – I mean at their election?”
“" He highlighted that public trust in our judicial system was high, while in some other countries with higher retirement ages, judicial morale was low. However, with due respect, this does not address specifically why an extension of the age when tenure ends was neither feasible nor beneficial. In fact, Minister Tong himself stated, in the course of the debate, that the security of tenure for a Supreme Court Judge seeks to secure the independence of the Judge in judicial proceedings. Therefore, would an extension from 65 to 70 years not be better from that perspective? Madam, to have Judges re-employed beyond 65 on short-term contracts leaves room for speculation that a sitting Judge may be influenced by the need for renewal at the end of his tenure at 65. Judges aged 65 should continue to enjoy security of tenure and retire for good at 70. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Secondly, there was a sense that when Judges retired too early, this was a real loss to the nation. The suggestion to move the age when tenure ends from 65 to 70 years is actually a very modest one, if one looks at how life expectancy in Singapore has changed over the decades. The current retirement age of 65 years was introduced way back in 1969, more than half a century ago, when the life expectancy in Singapore was 67.6 years. Just consider that – in 1969, a Judge retiring at 65 years then, statistically had just a few more years to live. Today, our life expectancy has drastically increased to 84 years. The situation elsewhere is also worth noting. In Australia and New Zealand, the retirement age of Judges is 70. In the United Kingdom (UK), the age of retirement for Judges was recently increased from 70 to 75 years, just two years ago, with the reason cited that raising the retirement age would mean that the Judges' invaluable experience could be retained. The same can be said for our Judges in Singapore. We last discussed this issue in the House three years ago, in the course of a debate on Bills that restructured the courts. During that debate, several Members of Parliament, including myself, raised the topic of the tenure of Supreme Court Judges. I argued then for the extension of the retirement age to 70, from a manpower utilisation perspective and in the context of Singaporeans having better health and living longer. In his round-up speech at that time, then-Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong basically said – and here I am paraphrasing – that our system should be judged by outcomes and "if it ain't broke, why fix it?”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum allocated for Head E of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Madam, the Government regularly emphasises that Singapore holds fast to the rule of law. One of the fundamentals of the rule of law is that the Government and Parliament should be subject to being scrutinised and checked by an independent judiciary. What is the measure of judicial independence? One key aspect is that when Judges are appointed, they must have security of tenure, meaning that they cannot be removed from office until they reach a certain age or, in some countries, until they die. Such security assures Judges and the public they serve that cases are decided according to the law, fearlessly and without favour. 7.30 pm Under our Constitution, Article 98 protects the security of tenure of Supreme Court Judges till the age of 65 years. Article 98 provides, among other things, that the office of a Supreme Court Judge must not be abolished during the Judges' continuance in office and that the terms of appointment, including remuneration, shall not be altered to the Judges' disadvantage after his appointment. Madam, I wish to make a call today to raise the age when tenure ends from 65 to 70 years. The call I am making is not new. So, why am I bringing this up again today? Madam, I find that in my interactions with members of the Bar and legal fraternity, there is support for raising the age of tenure of Judges to 70 for two key reasons. First, such an extension of security of the tenure was preferable to the current practice of reemploying Judges reaching 65 on short-term contracts. This observation which I share is purely from a system design perspective and not a comment on the actual behaviour of any Judge.”
“As I explained during the HDB debate, the Government already differentially prices land for different classes and uses of that land. These suggestions simply extend that logic to religious institutions. Interim Use of Land”
“Many have operated in the communities that they serve for long periods of time – decades, and in some cases, centuries. During the recent Motion on affordability and accessibility of the Housing and Development Board (HDB), it became amply clear that property prices are high in Singapore in no small part due to the cost of land. And this cost is not only high, but exorbitant for institutions that are not fundamentally profit-making in nature. The way some religious institutions have navigated this conundrum is to convert part of their operations into profit-making activities: they hive off part of their property for columbaria, childcare, coffee shops and carparks – I suppose you need the 4Cs in order to make the other big C, cash. And the most successful of those operating with this model even build a "super C" – shopping centres. But I believe that it is unfair to expect every religious institution to engage in commerce; after all, some may hold the view that their earthly purpose is explicitly to reject such secular activities. One solution is to recognise that religious institutions meet societal needs that are poorly valued by the market and, hence, are deserving of special consideration for their class of land leases. This is the case for pricing for land for mosques, which Minister Shanmugam explained – in a response to Parliamentary Question filed by my hon friend Sylvia Lim – results in lower prices. Another alternative is to adopt the now-standard price quality method framework, which would place a greater weight on factors like the diversity of religious bodies in a given town, or the duration that a church or mosque or temple has served in a given community.”
“Madam, religious organisations need a place to operate from. Today, many organisations operate on land which is leased to them by the Government for 30 years, and are subject to renewal thereafter. I understand that some temples and churches find the sums charged for the issue and renewal of land leases to be very high. The sums they need to raise often require significant fund-raising efforts, which in turn take their energies away from their main mission of practising and propagating their faith. I am aware that the Government is alive to these worries. MinLaw has announced that it is reviewing its policy in this area and had been consulting religious groups. The review has been going on for some months now. In answer to my Parliamentary Question filed in October last year, the Minister stated that state land parcels, including those allocated for Place of Worship use, were required to be sold at fair market value. He explained that this meant that the parcels of land were generally sold through a competitive tender process, where the highest acceptable price becomes the land price for the specific site. He attributed the rise in prices due to the competitive bidding process. I understand that the Government review of land allocation and pricing framework for land for places of worship is ongoing. In the meantime, could the Ministry clarify what it is considering to mitigate the high prices, and when the review will be completed? Dedicated Land Leases for Religious Institutions Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Churches, mosques, temples, and other religious institutions are cornerstones of our communities. They provide succour for the bereaved, counsel for the needy and guidance for the lost.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification on ASEAN's approach towards Myanmar. I believe both the Minister and the Second Minister touched on this matter. From what I understood, there was an ASEAN decision to exclude Myanmar's junta leaders from ASEAN-level meetings because of disappointment with the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus. I think that decision was taken in November last year. But at the same time, we read that a month later in December, Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs apparently hosted a regional meeting, which the junta leaders attended, and which was attended also by Foreign Ministers from Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and also, I think, from the Vietnam foreign ministry. I understood that Singapore declined to attend, together with, perhaps, the other founding members of ASEAN – the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. So, two questions concerning this: one, could the Minister confirm our reasons for not wanting to attend this meeting? And secondly, does he think that the fact that some ASEAN Foreign Ministers attended shows that there is actually a difference of opinion or approach, on how ASEAN should approach Myanmar's junta leaders and the situation in Myanmar in general?”
“Then, there are disputes over Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, which both sides resolved through arbitration at the International Court of Justice. Also appearing as occasional points of disagreement are maritime delimitation, the effects of land reclamation, as well as flight paths for military and civil aircraft. Generally, both sides seek to address differences professionally and respect the arbitral processes in which they agree to participate. I would like to ask the Foreign Minister how the Government intends to further consolidate and build on the Singapore-Malaysia relationship, and develop new areas for mutually beneficial cooperation at both the official and unofficial levels. We would, of course, bear in mind the potential for political instability in Malaysia. What are the areas that he seeks to explore, either bilaterally with the Malaysian government, or even unilaterally, beyond those covered during Datuk Seri Anwar's recent visit? Are there any timelines for these proposals or projects? What are the communication channels to prevent the escalation of differences, to ensure calm and professional management and resolution of differences as and when they arise? Sir, whatever our differences, Malaysia is our closest neighbour. This bilateral relationship is one we must manage effectively in an increasingly contested and uncertain world. I ask the Foreign Minister to lay out the Government's perspective. Bilateral Ties with Malaysia”
“Chairman, I note the recent visit to Singapore by the Malaysian Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The event marks a new chapter in relations across the Singapore Strait, one where our two countries can, perhaps, continue putting down some of the historical baggage accumulated over the years. I am heartened by the fact that Singapore and Putrajaya are moving ahead on such issues as management of the Flight Information Region (FIR), development of the Rapid Transit System and reducing congestion along the Causeway. There will also be a Leaders' Retreat later this year. Singapore and Malaysia share many things. The histories of our countries are deeply intertwined, family and social ties link our societies. We are consistently among each other's largest trading partners and Singapore is one of the main sources of foreign direct investment (FDI) into Malaysia – in fact, second largest in 2021. The Singaporean and Malaysian governments often collaborate on external issues of mutual concern. We do so in several ways – bilaterally, through ASEAN, or as part of groupings, like the Five Power Defence Arrangements and Strait of Malacca Patrols. Amid the COVID-19 restrictions, Singaporeans discovered how important Malaysian workers are to our economy, just as Malaysian food products are an integral part of our diet. Cultural and social currents often flow both ways across our borders as well. As neighbours that are geographically right next to each other, there will be differences from time to time. Historically, this included differences over water supply, something that Singapore's diversification of national taps may be helping to alleviate.”
“Chairman, clarification for Minister Chan Chun Sing on the issue of voting age. In other countries, we have seen that where there is military conscription, there can be a link with the age of conscription to the voting age. So, for example, in the US, we saw that in the 1960s, there was a big move to bring the voting age from 21 to 18 because teenagers were being conscripted to fight in the Vietnam War. The slogan at that time was "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote". 6.00 pm So, I would like the Minister to explain to our youths, why they are old enough to fight and defend Singapore with their lives, but they are not old enough to vote.”
“As far as taking significant personal responsibility where actions is concerned, today, if a young person above 18 commits a capital crime, he is liable to suffer capital punishment and be hanged. Since our policies treat them as adults for these undertakings, how do we justify depriving these youth of a say at National Elections. On the second point about voting involving the election of the President and the Government, is that not the whole point? It seems that most other countries trust their youths to vote for their president and government, but this Government does not. As to the third point about being able to give feedback on the Government's youth action plans, I think we can all agree that giving feedback is not the same as having your vote counted at the National Elections. Sir, the period from 2007 to now has seen momentous change. For instance, this House changed its position on section 377A of the Penal Code and decided to repeal it, noting that half a generation has passed. I hope the Government will be similarly open-minded about lowering the voting age as well. Conflicts of Interest”
“Sir, I call for the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 years to empower younger Singaporeans to have a say at our National Elections. I first raised this 16 years ago during the Committee of Supply debates. I pointed out at that time that the majority of countries have already lowered their voting ages to 18. In response, then Law Minister Prof S Jayakumar highlighted that Malaysia's voting age was also 21 and Japan's was 20. Today, these two countries have also lowered their voting age to 18, Malaysia in 2019 and Japan in 2016. Therefore, today, Singapore is becoming an outlier in keeping the voting age at 21 years. Of course, we do not need to blindly follow the policies of other countries. So, we must question the rationale for Singapore's stand. What is so unique about our youths aged between 18 and 21 that they should not be entrusted with the vote? The answer from the Government more recently can be summarised in three points. First, it is said that voting requires experience and maturity and only at 21 does a person come of age to make adult's decisions and engage in activities that involve significant personal responsibility. Secondly, voting involves the election of the President who exercises custodial and veto powers and the election of the Government. Thirdly, youths aged 18 to 21 are able to express their views through other platforms such as in Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's Youth Action Plan. Sir, clearly, these reasons are inadequate. To the first point about only coming of age at 21, we already require those under 21 to engage in some very serious undertakings. Boys are enlisted into National Service by 18 years, required to carry weapons and vow to defend Singapore with their lives.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to respond to say that it reminded me very much of the Justice Motion that I tabled in November of 2020 when Mr Murali put forward an amendment to the Motion at the last minute.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. Earlier, in her answer, she stressed on the fact that CPIB and AGC's assessment were that there was unavailable evidence, unavailable witnesses in jurisdiction. But I think she will appreciate that under our law, confessions actually are a useful piece of evidence on which prosecutions can be mounted. So, I would like to ask Minister, first, did CPIB interview all the six persons who were warned personally in Singapore? And secondly, in relation to this, was CPIB not able to obtain any incriminating statement from these six persons? That is the first clarification. The second clarification is, in her answer, she also referred to a foreign witness whom she mentioned could have provided useful evidence in Court. May I ask her to confirm that she is referring to the former Head of Legal of KOM? And if that is so, is she saying that whatever he told the US court, in terms of the fact that he drafted agreements to facilitate the bribery scheme in conjunction with approval from his seniors, whoever they are, he is repudiating all that now in front of CPIB?”
“Bankruptcy can be debilitating and disempowering, as bankrupts are stigmatised and disqualified from public office and various professions. I do hope that as we move toward a system of having PTIBs as the default, the bankruptcy experience can be a less painful one.”
“Specifically, from the debtors' perspective, I would like to highlight three aspects which I think are important in assessing whether the PTIB system is working optimally. First, on neutrality of administration. Bankruptcy cases are now being handled not by a public officer from the OA's office, but by a PTIB chosen by the creditor whose fees are also underwritten by the creditor. It is sometimes said that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Have there been any complaints from debtors that the PTIBs have been unfair to them? A second aspect concerns the fees to be paid to PTIBs. From my reading, the fees are not fixed according to a scale but are decided by the creditors in each case. Is there a wide variation in the rates of fees charged? If the range is too wide, this is not desirable. I have also heard Mr Murali's concerns earlier on the possible financial hardship that might be caused if high fees are charged moving forward on non-institutional creditors and debtors. Finally, on response times to debtors. This was a common grouse of bankrupts in the past. Have PTIBs be able to respond efficiently to debtors' communications and requests? I also have a query on clause 2 regarding the proposed expansion of the PTIB scheme to non-institutional creditors and voluntary bankruptcies. Given that non-institutional creditors and debtors may not have knowledge and experience in insolvency matters, how will they decide which insolvency practitioner to propose as their PTIB? Will more resources be put up to assist them in making the selection of insolvency practitioner? Sir, finally, let me say a few words to conclude. We know that bankrupt persons end up in bankruptcy for a myriad of reasons, including misfortune, bad timing and being guarantors for the debts of others.”
“When the scheme in the Bill is implemented, the OA will directly manage only a minority of bankruptcies, which the Ministry has explained would be cases with a public interest element, such as when public funds have been misused. Sir, from a resource standpoint, it is hard to quarrel with the Ministry's rationale to move towards PTIBs, that taxpayer-funded public resources such as the OA's office should not be tied up enforcing private debts. It should fall to the creditor and the debtor to bear the cost of bankruptcy administration. That said, I have some queries on evaluating our experience with the PTIB scheme thus far and one query on the Bill itself. First, on evaluating the PTIB experience. Five years ago, Singapore commenced the use of PTIBs in bankruptcy cases involving institutional creditors. Now that the Bill proposes to extend the use of PTIBs to non-institutional creditors and voluntary bankruptcies as well, it is appropriate to ask what can be learned from the past five years. Have there been better outcomes in bankruptcies, not just in terms of freeing up public resources but also better experiences for creditors and debtors? In the Ministry's media release of 28 November, it was stated that the administration of bankruptcy estates by PTIBs since 2017, "has been smooth and no action has been taken on the PTIBs by the OA and/or the Courts on the PTIBs' management of bankruptcies." This was apparently based on feedback from the industry. While no formal action has been taken, it would be good for the Ministry to elaborate on how the OA has exercised its supervisory role over the PTIBs under section 42 of the Act. For instance, has the OA had to inquire into any complaints by creditors or debtors and if so, what was the nature of those complaints?”
“Mr Speaker, over the years, I have met several residents who are undischarged bankrupts and whose estates were being managed by the OA. They shared with me their experience liaising with the OA officers for various purposes, ranging from proposing instalment payments of their debts to obtaining permission to leave the country. While they had no complaint about the way they were treated, a common dissatisfaction was the perceived difficulty in contacting the officers or delays in obtaining responses. This was an issue I first raised a decade ago during MinLaw's Committee of Supply (COS) debates. Since then, I have noted the Ministry's constructive moves to improve the situation, including taking steps to rationalise the OAs workload. A major change took place in 2015, when the then-Bankruptcy Act was amended to require institutional creditors, such as banks and finance companies to have their bankrupt debtors estates managed by PTIBs. This scheme for institutional creditors to appoint PTIBs would have significantly reduced the number of new bankruptcies under the OAs direct management since institutional creditors accounted for more than 50% of bankruptcy applications. According to MinLaw's register of insolvency practitioners, today, there are 187 lawyers and accountants registered as potential PTIBs. The Bill before the House today will move the needle further as it proposes that all creditors, not just institutional creditors, will need to appoint a PTIB if they intend to make that debtors bankrupt. Debtors, too, who wish to voluntarily apply for bankruptcy who also have to appoint a PTIB.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. Earlier, he mentioned that the Coroner would study the outcome of the Police investigations into the incident. I would like to ask him whether there has been any decision or indication that a Coroner's inquiry will be held in the open Court in this case, because there is obviously a high element of public interest and it would be good for the public to follow the circumstances of what happened to the deceased. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Under section 20 of the Coroners Act, if I am not mistaken, the Coroner may carry out such an inquiry, if that is necessary. So, if there is a need for the Coroner to do so, it will be done. And let me just double check. Yes, under the Coroners Act 2010, the State Coroner may decide to hold a Coroner's inquiry to establish the circumstances leading to a death. We will see how the Police investigations go. I will not make any assumptions or speculation regarding the investigation. Nevertheless, I assure the Members that we are going to do a thorough and proper investigation.”
“The third clarification is, I would like the Minister to confirm whether he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Government actions, as well as Parliament's laws, do conform to the Constitution.”
“And lastly, Sir, my clarification for the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, I did say that I am not opposing the Bill, but I am abstaining. And the reason I am abstaining is that I have concern about the role of the Courts having judicial oversight over the legality of Government actions and Parliament. I am concerned that that should be protected. I, for one, value it and that is why I am abstaining.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I wish to make four points if I may, three are clarifications for the Minister for Home Affairs and one is a clarification on my position on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Let me go to the clarifications for Minister for Home Affairs. Yesterday, during his Second Reading speech, he cited many Court challenges to the constitutionality of section 377A. We are all aware of them. But I do not believe any of the Ministers cited any Court challenges to the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, I would like to ask the Government, whether there has been any Court challenge to the heterosexual definition of marriage. And to that extent, would he not agree with me that his analogy of the oncoming train applies to section 377A, but does not quite apply to the heterosexual definition of marriage? The second clarification, earlier he mentioned that the Government does not believe that their policies violate the Constitution. I would like to ask him, without Article 156 being enacted, is the Government not confident that it can convince a Court that marriage, based on heterosexual definition, is based on reasonable criteria? It serves the purpose of promoting procreation within a family unit under AMLA, under Women's Charter; and therefore, the Government is on much stronger footing on the constitutionality of the heterosexual definition of marriage, compared to section 377A. That is my belief anyway. The third clarification is, I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Parliament's laws and Government actions do conform with the Constitution. I would like his confirmation on that.”
“I am also concerned about whether the carve-out of judicial oversight on the institution of marriage will set a precedent for future carve-outs, even if this is not the intention today. This is potentially detrimental to Singaporeans. That said, Sir, I appreciate the difficulties the Government has in navigating this issue of section 377A. It is not easy to arrive at a solution that addresses the concerns of society which is divided on the matter. To that end, I understand the signal the Government wishes to send through the proposed Article 156. So, I will not oppose the Bill. Nevertheless, my concerns about safeguarding the Courts in doing their constitutional duty remain. For the reasons I have stated, I have decided to cast a vote of abstention on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.”
“The Constitution is the fundamental legal safeguard of citizens, to protect them against illegal laws and policies that violate the Constitution. And it is the job of the Courts to assess whether any law is constitutional or not. Earlier, I heard Minister Masagos in his Second Reading speech, and I would humbly submit that it is not the same thing to say that when the Courts is assessing a law for constitutionality, it is intervening in a political space. It is the Court's job to ensure that laws and policies conform with the Constitution. Sir, this Bill today seeks to exclude the Courts from reviewing the constitutionality of laws and policies concerning marriage. Quite apart from the decision being taken today, I am concerned about what this carve out means for the future. Will the Government, present or future, come up with other areas of life, where the Courts are to be excluded from reviewing laws and policies for constitutionality? Will Parliament in the future be looking at Article 157, 158 or 159? Sir, it goes without saying that Parliament and the Government should, instead, be ever mindful of what the Constitution requires and act within those parameters. To that end, I am very concerned about the implications of this new carve-out and what Parliament is asked to do today. Sir, to summarise, I understand the purpose of Article 156 as a quid pro quo for the repeal of section 377A. However, as far as sub-articles (1) and (2) are concerned, it does not seem to me that these provisions add anything to the current position. As for Articles 156(3) and (4), I am concerned about the Courts being further curtailed in their constitutional duty to check Parliament and the Government.”
“The latter two sub-articles seek to prohibit challenges under Part 4 of the Constitution to laws and policies based on the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. I wish to record my concern about the implications of sub-articles (3) and (4) on judicial oversight of the actions of Parliament and the Government. It bears stating here that Part 4 is the part of the Constitution entitled "fundamental liberties". It is Part 4 that grants individuals critical protections against abuse of state power, such as ensuring freedom from arbitrary arrest and freedom of religion, and the right to equal protection under the law. These are enshrined in the Constitution for a reason. No doubt, these fundamental liberties may not all be absolute, and some of them have been qualified in the Constitution itself. But if one looks at the existing qualifications, they tend to be scoped tightly and justified on the grounds of national emergencies, security, public order and public health. This was a point that Member Mr Murali touched on earlier as well. Sir, to now include the definition of marriage as something that the Courts cannot assess for constitutionality does not appear to me to be justified. To clarify, I am not advocating for gay marriages here. My concern is purely about whether it is justified to exclude judicial scrutiny on this topic. From a governance standpoint, I find this position very difficult to accept. Under Article 93 of the Constitution, judicial power has been vested in our Courts. Article 4 provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, a point recognised by Minister Masagos earlier. Article 4 provides that laws passed by Parliament that are inconsistent with the Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
“However, as pointed out by the Law Minister in August, this does not amount to an entrenchment of the definition of marriage as between a man and woman. He and Mr Masagos also made clear earlier that it was open to Parliament to change the definition of marriage by amending the law by a simple majority in Parliament. It is therefore appropriate to consider what the actual effect of Article 156 is. I intend to look at each of the four sub-articles in turn. First, Article 156(1). It is stated that Parliament may pass laws which define, regulate, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. On the one hand, that sounds like a clear statement of what Parliament can do. However, with due respect, I am not sure what this sub-article actually achieves, apart from stating the obvious. It is indisputable that under Article 38 of the Constitution, legislative power has already been vested in the Legislature consisting of the President and Parliament. Parliament can pass laws on any subject. In what way then is Article 156(1) meaningful? Similarly, for Article 156(2), it states that the Government and any public authority may exercise their executive authority to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. Again, is there a need to state that the Government and any public authority may exercise their executive authority? It already is the position that under Article 23 of the Constitution, executive authority is vested in the President and exercisable by Cabinet Ministers and other bodies as authorised by law. It is arguable then, that Article 156(1) and (2) do not add anything new to the current position. I next move to the second half of the proposed Article 156.”
“Mr Speaker, at the outset, I wish to state that I am in support of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. This is due to the likely unconstitutionality of section 377A for violating Article 12, especially in the light of recent legal developments. I wish now to focus on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill now before the House. Sir, the Bill proposes to add a new Article 156 to the Constitution. I believe it is important to study the various parts of Article 156 in detail. The first half of Article 156, namely sub-articles (1) and (2), state that laws and policies concerning the promotion of the institution of marriage lie within the province of Parliament and the Government. The second half of Article 156, namely sub-articles (3) and (4), declare that laws and policies based on a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman cannot be invalidated on the grounds that they violate Part 4 of the Constitution on Fundamental Liberties. It is further stated in these two sub-articles that the apparent prohibition of a Constitutional challenge will apply to laws and policies that are in force whether before, on or after the commencement of this Bill, that is, for all past, current and future laws and policies. Sir, from what I understand, the amendments to the Constitution are an attempt at a quid pro quo for the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. The repeal of section 377A is concerning to many Singaporeans who are not supportive of the repeal and who fear that the removal of the offence would mainstream gay lifestyles in further spheres of life. I see Article 156 as the Government's way of signalling that the definition of marriage in Singapore would not be changed in the near future.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Earlier, he cited some figures about patients and residents who had contracted COVID-19 from within these facilities. I think he mentioned 330 in hospitals and about 3,000 in nursing homes over that period of time. May I ask him how confident is he that these are not under-estimates of the actual situation because some patients could be asymptomatic and I am not sure whether there is 100% testing daily? The second question is that, there are some studies in the UK which suggest that within healthcare facilities, patient-to-patient transmission was more a common cause of infections rather than, say, from healthcare workers to patients. I wonder whether the Ministry has been studying this issue and whether the Senior Minister of State can elaborate on whether it is the case that it is more likely to be patient-to-patient transmission rather than healthcare worker-to-patient, or whether the Ministry has some other grasp of the nature of the transmissions? And finally, I understand from some other overseas studies as well in the UK that hospital-acquired infections may be affected by things like ventilation systems and design of wards. Is the Ministry looking into these methods as well?”
“Besides having incentives to consult family doctor regularly, there will also be a need for a supportive infrastructure and to change mindsets. On infrastructure, the Government has built sporting facilities and beautiful park connectors for Singaporeans to exercise in. Besides that, healthier food needs to be affordably priced so that less privileged Singaporeans can afford to make healthy choices daily. Whatever the case, in the final analysis, changing people's deep-seated habits might be the most difficult of all. Sir, let me conclude. This Motion to focus on preventive care as a key thrust in healthcare should be supported. It holds the promise of meaningful and fulfilling lives for Singaporeans into old age. And, if implemented well, can help reduce healthcare inequality. It is likely to be money well-spent. At the same time, based on studies overseas, there may be risks associated with capitation funding. I hope the Ministry will clarify in due course how the funding model will be implemented so as to minimise any compromise on health outcomes. Finally, for Healthier SG to succeed, a whole-of-society effort towards healthier living, including changing some deep-seated mindsets and habits will be needed.”
“Coming back to Healthier SG, I am pleased to note that the White Paper states that the capitation funding formula "will be tiered based on the health risk profile of each enrolled resident, scope of required care and the progress made in terms of preventive care for chronic disease management." Could the Ministry clarify what level of granularity will be used to tier the funding, for instance, will the funding be tiered based on the disease diagnosis and the stage of the disease progression? Yesterday, the Minister also touched on the overall finance and budget implications of Healthier SG. He said that the set-up cost over three to four years would be about $1 billion, while there would be recurrent cost of about $400 million a year, including the annual servicing fee for patients. Does this mean that the Ministry has already worked out the detailed capitation sums for each health risk profile, and when will this information be published? Sir, my final observation is that for Healthier SG to succeed, there needs to be a whole-of-society buy-in. Each of us needs to make adjustments to our daily lives. To illustrate the possible difficulties and inertia, please let me share a personal anecdote. Over the weekend. I met some friends for a meal. As they continued to order local favourites, such as char kway teow, fried Hokkien mee and others, I asked them whether they had heard about the Healthier SG plan which would be debated in Parliament this week. They gave me a quizzical look and, without blinking an eye, continued to order more of the same. Sir, this amplifies the monumental task ahead to get population buy-in for changes to deep-seated lifestyle habits.”
“At the same time, capitation funding has been the subject of research in many countries, particularly on whether such funding has led to healthcare providers to function as economic agents, that is, instead of focusing on the patient's best interest, healthcare providers look at the financial bottom-line and behave in certain ways which may not be in the patient's best interest. I am not saying this will happen for Healthier SG but we should be alive to the risk. There is evidence from several studies overseas that capitation funding models tended to result in patients receiving less treatment, that is, they went to the doctor less frequently and their treatments tended to cost less than compared with the FFS models. It is often not clear whether this was a result of capitation working well by cutting down unnecessary treatments and waste, or whether, on the other hand, patients were, in fact, underserved, that is, not getting adequate treatment. It also goes without saying that the level of funding is key. If capitation funding is pegged more generously, the quality of care would generally be better. Some studies focus on doctors' own assessments of whether the way they treated patients was different and under capitation funding compared to FFS models. There were indications that some physicians believed that funding had affected their choices of treatment. There has also been concern whether capitation funding would lead to healthcare providers cherry-picking their patients. In other words, with a fixed annual servicing fee, it might make economic sense to choose healthier patients rather than, for instance, older patients with health problems.”
“First, on capitation funding. At Chapter 5 of the White Paper, it is stated that to fund Healthier SG, the Government intends to roll out capitation funding first to family doctors and then to the geographical healthcare clusters. There are scant details in the White Paper about how this will be implemented and the Minister yesterday did give a few more details. I would like to ask how the Government intends to ensure that the move to capitation funding does not undermine access to healthcare and the quality of healthcare. As stated in the White Paper, capitation funding will be a shift away from the current funding model based on services provided, commonly called fee for service or FFS models. The Ministry has pointed out that capitation funding is in place in healthcare systems in other countries, such as in Europe, New Zealand and the United States. Yesterday, the Minister pointed out that general practitioners (GPs) here are also not new to the concept. For Healthier SG, the Minister stated that besides the annual servicing fee paid to healthcare providers, there would still be separate subsidies for patients' medicines and screening. The Ministry's stated objective for adopting capitation funding is to, and I quote, "Create an inherent incentive for healthcare providers to focus on preventive care and right siting of patients." Put another way, healthcare providers who keep patients healthy and do not over service their patients will benefit under a system of capitation funding. Sir, if capitation funding means that patients can go to the doctor for consultations at minimal cost, this potentially will encourage poorer Singaporeans to consult doctors to work out health plans. If successfully implemented, it will go some way towards reducing healthcare inequality.”
“It is well-known that it is preferable for healthcare systems to aim to prevent ill health rather than to subsequently treat it from a financial standpoint. Five years ago, a systematic review was published, assessing the returns from investing in public health interventions such as promoting well-being and preventing ill health in society. From 52 studies of healthcare systems in high-income countries, it was found that the return on investment (ROI) of public health interventions was at the median of 14 to one, that, is, for every one dollar invested in public health, $14 will be subsequently returned to the wider health and social care economy. Although we do not yet know what returns Healthier SG might bring in dollars and cents, there is reason to be optimistic. From the healthcare system standpoint, it is vital that the focus of prevention ease the pressure on our acute facilities. Even as we debate today, residents experienced very busy A&E departments in public hospitals in the past months, with patients sometimes waiting more than a day at A&E before being allocated a ward bed. On this front, I note that in the White Paper, the Ministry has listed 22 indicators to assess Healthier SG by, including indicators of easing the load on acute facilities, such as reducing the avoidable Emergency Department attendance rate and reducing the admissions of the elderly for fall injuries. If achieved, these reductions will bring relief to patients and staff at acute facilities and contribute to better care for those most in need. That said, I have two further observations; first, to seek clarifications on the move to capitation funding and how healthcare outcomes will be safeguarded; and second, to conclude with the importance of a whole-of-society buy-in to the plan.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as Members of Parliament, it is not unusual at our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) to encounter residents with serious health or mobility issues. For them a short trip to the MPS is, itself, a difficult journey. Some of them are around my age. As I learn more about their circumstances, I often ask myself whether the quality of their lives might have been drastically better if they have had the correct interventions and advice at an earlier stage. I tend to see this particularly in residents of less means. On today's Motion on the Healthier SG White Paper, I wish to focus my speech on three areas: one, the potential of Healthier SG: two, clarifications around capitation funding; and three, to conclude with the importance of a whole-of-society buy-in. First, the potential of Healthier SG. A key thrust of the Healthier SG White Paper is that residents will be encouraged to enrol with a family doctor even when they are well so that they may benefit from advice regarding social interventions to adopt healthier lifestyles. It is envisaged that the doctor will take charge of the overall well-being of the resident for a period of time, rather than to treat the patient on an episodic basis. This holds much promise for a healthier nation overall. In moving the Motion yesterday, the Health Minister assessed that the returns of better health outcomes from Healthier SG would take maybe eight to 10 years before tangible results might be seen. However, on returns based on dollars and cents terms, there are encouraging experiences from overseas. Prevention strategies have been shown to make economic sense as they are substantially cost-saving.”
“Thank you, Sir. Just to clarify the Senior Minister of State's answer on the first question. In his answer, he mentioned the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP). But my concern was more about those cases where they were unreasonably denied re-employment, which is more a case of compensation. So, is he saying that the same formula applies to both scenarios?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first relates to cases that were decided by the Minister to be substantiated under section 8B of the Act. Am I right to assume that the compensation amount is usually a multiple of the employees' last drawn salary? And if that is the case, could the Ministry share with us: so far, what has been the range of the compensations ordered by the Minister, in terms of how many months? And the second supplementary question is, it was announced in 2021 that anti-discrimination legislation would be worked upon. Does he have any update for us on this and when we can expect it to come into force.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. One question for the Minister of State. When the law enforcement agency is getting consent from the person they are drawing the DNA sample from – it could be a suspect, it could be a volunteer – and that person is not comfortable in English, are there steps to make an interpreter present?”
“Although refusal to consent is already an offence, the proposed section 27 creates a new offence if a parent or guardian of a child refuses to give consent for a body sample to be drawn from the child. Although it is right to seek the consent of the parent or guardian in the case of a child, is it appropriate to inflict punishment on a parent or guardian who does not give consent to an invasive procedure on his or her child? Are there other jurisdictions where parents are punished in this way? Sir, finally, I should end on a note of caution. While DNA profiling has certainly been a game changer for law enforcement, there are limitations. From what I understand, DNA profiles lifted from crime scenes are often incomplete and, hence, less helpful in identifying a particular suspect. Such partial profiles will also match with many people. There is also the risk of the DNA being contaminated at the crime scene or being brought there by secondary transfer, that is, a person who was not at the scene may have his DNA inadvertently or even deliberately brought there by someone else. It is a fact that there had been miscarriages of justice in other jurisdictions involving DNA evidence, such as wrongful convictions, due to mix-ups in the laboratories handling the DNA. Sir, we must be alive to all these risks and demand the highest standards in our investigations, including in the handling, processing and analysis of DNA samples. The relevant agencies, including our Courts, should also be mindful not to regard DNA evidence as infallible, but to assess it in the light of other evidence so as to minimise the risk of wrongful convictions.”
“Under the current section 13D of the Registration of Criminals Act, a person may volunteer to give a body sample if he was present at the scene of the crime or if he is being questioned in connection with the investigation. In this Bill, the proposed section 23 will expand the potential net of volunteers by enabling any volunteer to provide his sample even if there is no nexus between the volunteer and crime. Sir, I note that such a provision does exist in other jurisdictions. So, in principle, I do not object to the change. However, the question is: how will this operate in practice and, in particular, whether the vulnerable groups may be pressured to provide blood samples thinking that they have no choice but to "volunteer"? Already, with the current section 13D, I had noted previously in this House the case in 2008 – 14 years ago – of blood samples being taken from 200 foreign workers in the aftermath of an attack on a student at Clementi Woods Park. When I filed the Parliamentary Question on this in 2008, the Ministry replied that the blood samples were drawn after the workers had voluntarily given their consent. I do not know how the consents were obtained from the 200 workers to draw the blood samples. However, one could well ask to what extent the workers were worried that non-cooperation would jeopardise their employment in Singapore. With the expanded powers to collect body samples from just about anyone who volunteers, what safeguards would be put in place to ensure that vulnerable groups are not picked on and that the consent of volunteers is informed and freely given? Sir, my second concern is about the proposed section 27. This section makes it an offence to refuse to consent to give a body sample when one is liable to give it.”
“He was thereafter charged with this old offence and sentenced by the Court accordingly. It was indeed gratifying to know that technology worked correctly in that case to bring justice to the elderly woman, albeit, years later. If enhancing the DNA database will result in more cases being solved and bring justice and closure to more victims and their families, that is an outcome we should support. At the same time, there is the important issue of safeguarding personal information. As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, we have looked at how DNA collection is managed in other jurisdictions, including Australia and the UK, two jurisdictions which the Minister of State referred to earlier. Sir, the Bill before us no doubt widens significantly the State's powers to collect DNA from individuals. However, we see some attempts to limit the scope of the State's powers. I will just cite two examples. First, as far as what types of DNA samples may be collected, clause 2 makes clear that though the Minister may prescribe additional types of samples that may be collected, he cannot include samples obtained from more private parts of a person's body, such as the genital areas. A second example of scope limitation is found in the proposed section 25. This section states that while reasonable force may be used to take body samples where the person does not consent, use of such force does not extend to taking an invasive sample, such as a blood sample. I support these and other limitations on the state's powers. That said, I have concerns about two particular aspects of the Bill which, I believe, need to be clarified. First, on volunteers giving their DNA samples.”
“While we should always be concerned about treating suspects and offenders fairly, we need also to remember that victims are critical stakeholders who tend to be overlooked. For instance, while the victim may have suffered harm, criminal justice systems are such that the decision makers in the case will be the prosecuting authorities, with the victims' wishes sometimes being overruled. To that end, the evolution of technology, if correctly applied, can result in bringing to more victims the justice and closure they deserve. To illustrate my point, I wish to share a vivid personal experience from my days in law enforcement. It is public information that in the 1990s, the Singapore Police introduced an investigation tool known as AFIS – the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. The system automated the matching of fingerprints lifted from crime scenes with those stored in a database of convicted persons and suspects. The implementation of AFIS at that time resulted in the resurrection of many old casefiles where fingerprint matches were suddenly found. I remember being assigned one such case. A fingerprint from a housebreaking scene was found to match the print of a person then in prison for another offence. My colleague and I then proceeded to visit the prisoner. He initially denied any involvement in the matter. However, when it was pointed out to him that his fingerprint was found at the scene, he immediately recanted and admitted that he had indeed broken into the flat. As I listened to him narrate what happened, I was struck by how his description of the position of the windows and the furniture and where the elderly female victim lay asleep corresponded exactly with the scene found by Police many years earlier.”