Teo Chee Hean
Singapore
“The second point first, Mr Speaker. Certainly, it could have been a factor. But to the Panel which reviewed the thing, it was not an acceptable excuse or reason. The agencies still have to be responsible for what they are doing, whatever season of the year it is.”
“On the balance in ACRA, I would not say it is a conflict, but you have to strike the right balance between the functions that ACRA is meant to provide, which is to have a registry which promotes corporate transparency, and you have to balance that against how you protect personal data.”
“That means, if you do find a bug or you do find a way in which you can penetrate a Government system, you let us know, and there is a bounty for it. And this is evergreen. But we also do, from time to time, have a hunting season. So, for certain of our systems, we invite white hatters to attack those systems.”
“Then, he asked when the political office holders got involved in the public communications on the Bizfile portal issue. They got involved, I think, almost as soon as it became apparent that there was public anxiety. Next question about paragraph 40 and the email to senior officers, yes, the July 2024 CM was emailed to officers.”
“In fact, we monitor the dark web for a variety of things, including this, and we have not seen any sale of NRIC numbers as such. On the question of collection and use of NRIC numbers, actually, in the communication with the Government agencies, I think it is important to know who you are communicating with.”
“So, you actually make your email address available to others. But for authentication purposes, it is quite different. You do not tell your password to others. That is something which you keep for yourself and your email service provider knows. So, there is a difference between an identifier and an authentication.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,689 lines we hold for Teo Chee Hean, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 34.
“Now, how can they be making representations to the Committee if this was a secret Committee and they did not know it existed? They gave their views and they offered them freely and voluntarily. They were also told clearly on 25 April 2017 that the Committee is not looking into the validity of the will, and its only interest is in understanding Mr Lee's wishes better. So, Mdm Speaker, going through the facts and the chronology, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, we must then ask, are they being truthful and honest when they allege that this is some "secret" Committee which they did not know about, and which was only acknowledged after Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang somehow exposed its existence? They knew about it. They were responding to it and sent several representations. They knew what the Committee was doing and, so, there is nothing mysterious about it, or there should not be. Mdm Speaker, just because Mr Lee Hsien Yang may have found some questions inconvenient to answer, that does not mean the Committee was abusing its power or doing something wrong. It was giving an opportunity for parties to express their views. Consider if the Committee had not asked the siblings for their views, it would have been a significant omission and then, in such a situation, the siblings might be justifiably upset that the Committee had not given them an opportunity to make their views known, or to make clarifications which another party may have put in which differed from theirs. But all the siblings were provided a full opportunity to do so. The siblings should, therefore, really have no reason to be unhappy with being asked, being given the opportunity to make voluntary representations to offer their views and to make clarifications.”
“So, this was made very clear to Dr Lee and Mr Lee Hsien Yang on 25 April 2017. I have not included that letter because I do not want to swamp Members with voluminous exchanges and letters. The Committee also made clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang from the outset that his provision of any reply was purely voluntary. On this basis, Mr Lee Hsien Yang proceeded to make various submissions to the Committee, both last year and into this year. The circumstances of the last will became relevant for a good reason, and this is because Mr Lee Hsien Yang's representations to the Committee placed reliance on one part of the last will as the primary evidence of Mr Lee's intent. He wanted the Committee to focus on one part of the clause relating to Mr Lee's wishes on the house and not the other parts. When the circumstances related to the drafting of the last will were brought to the Committee's attention, Mr Lee Hsien Yang's views on this were sought, and in the same vein − I might add − the Committee had also posed questions to Mr Lee Hsien Loong, some of them uncomfortable ones based on representations made by Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling. Mdm Speaker, I am quite puzzled. First of all, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang knew about the Committee. We informed them shortly after the Committee was formed on 27 July 2016. So, they knew about it. We also informed them what the Committee was setting out to do − this was on 27 July 2016 and, in response to his questions, we expanded on that, gave him some reassurances. And Members can see that from the letter on 24 August 2016. They were also invited to make representations to the Committee. The Committee was not looking at things in isolation.”
“Exchanges have happened quite rapidly, so, Mdm Speaker, I will read this out. Mr Lee Hsien Yang's statement on 2 July 2017 presents a selective and inaccurate account of his exchanges with the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road house. "Selective" and "inaccurate". The Committee sought Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling's views on the late Mr Lee's wishes and thinking in July 2016. In its initial letters, the Committee had made clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling the purpose and scope of the Committee's work. This includes (a) why the Committee was formed, (b) who it reports to, namely, the Cabinet, (c) what it would look into, and (d) why Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Dr Lee Wei Ling and, of course, Mr Lee Hsien Loong's inputs would be useful. The Committee told him clearly that it was listing the various options for the house to present to Cabinet. The Committee was not going to make any recommendations. The Government had no intention of making any decision on the house, as long as Dr Lee Wei Ling resides there, and Mr Lee Hsien Yang had acknowledged this in one of his subsequent replies. As such, it was clear to all parties involved that the Government was not making an immediate decision on the house, and that no decision may be necessary for another 20 to 30 years. I have enclosed letters dated 27 July 2016, shortly after the Committee was formed, and 24 August 2016 to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, which made these points very clear. The Committee has no power to decide on the validity of the last will. This, too, was made clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang on 25 April 2017 that the Committee is not the place where decisions on the legal validity of the last will can be made, and this is a matter between him and Mr Lee Hsien Loong.”
“Indeed, the fact that the Committee received differing views showed how essential it was that we had sought the views of the siblings on Mr Lee's wishes and thinking. Mdm Speaker, Mr Lee Hsien Yang has made various allegations about the Committee, which are baseless. He has repeated the same allegations today, ignoring the replies that have been provided to him in writing, in fact, since the very beginning when he was first informed of the setting up of the Committee. If I may draw Members' attention to the response from my Press Secretary yesterday, and I seek Mdm Speaker's permission to circulate this response to Members.”
“When Mr Lee met the Cabinet in July 2011, he expressed his wish for the house to be demolished, but Mr Lee also listened carefully to the views of the Cabinet members. It was not a stormy discussion. It was a considered discussion where he presented his views and he listened to the views expressed by the Cabinet members. While Mr Lee expressed his personal wishes, he was also very proper. Mr Lee did not direct the Government. He was aware of the Government's responsibilities and how the law on this matter operates. Mr Lee wrote to the Cabinet five months later, informing us that he had reflected on the matter. Earlier today, the Prime Minister read out to Members of this House the letter that Mr Lee had written to the Cabinet. This was Mr Lee's last formal communication with the Cabinet on this matter. Subsequently, as we have learnt from the beneficiaries of his estate, he had also expressed his wishes on the property in paragraph 7 of his last will. Members will also be aware of this. This paragraph had two main limbs, with a third limb saying that this paragraph could be made public so that his wishes are known. The Ministerial Committee wrote to all of Mr Lee's children on 27 July 2016, shortly after the Committee was formed, to invite them to share with the Committee, any views they would like on Mr Lee's thinking on the property, and the context and circumstances relating to his thinking beyond what had already been stated in public, so that these could be taken into account. Indeed, it is only natural that the Committee should ask the siblings for their views. The siblings wrote to us, providing differing views, including on the drafting of the last will. We then provided each party two opportunities to comment on the views of the other party.”
“In other cases, owners applied for redevelopment but were directed to conserve the buildings for their historic or heritage value, often forgoing considerable financial gains they might have reaped from redevelopment. There is a due process for considering such matters and the decision is never taken lightly. The ultimate decision is made by the Government. The Minister for National Development will elaborate on this later in his speech. These public interests and considerations apply to 38 Oxley Road as well. It was home to our founding Prime Minister. It was in its basement dining room that many important discussions and critical decisions on the future of Singapore were made by Mr Lee and our Pioneer leaders. As Mr Lee and our Pioneer generation of leaders − in fact, our Pioneer generation − pass on, the historical significance of markers of this period has grown. 38 Oxley Road is a key marker of this turning point in our history. Since we do not need to decide now how best to maintain this important historical link to the past, it might be best, for the time being, to avoid taking irreversible steps, such as demolition and redevelopment of the site, so that we have the benefit of time to consider the matter and the merits of various options with the perspective of history. A key consideration for 38 Oxley Road is Mr Lee's thinking on the property, which brings me to the second aspect of the Terms of Reference. The Committee has been paying particular attention to respecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes as we look at the range of possible options. This is the reason why we had sought views from Mr Lee's children.”
“Currently, 72 buildings and structures are gazetted as national monuments, some of which were private residences. And we have conserved over 7,000 buildings. Many of these predate our Independence and hark back to our early immigrant and colonial era, such as Admiralty House, the House of Tan Yeok Nee and the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall. We have precious few from our Independence era, and there have been calls to conserve these, such as several blocks of SIT flats in Tiong Bahru. For those who are not familiar with what "SIT" stands for, it is the Singapore Improvement Trust, the precursor of the Housing and Development Board. In the 1960s through to the 1980s, we cleared whole precincts and demolished many buildings for urban development, to make way for the new, in land-scarce Singapore. There was an urgent need for decent housing and industrial and commercial land for jobs − all for our people. When we look back, we were perhaps in some cases overzealous in doing so. Indeed, as fewer such precincts or buildings remained, the value of each of them as a link to the past became more salient − old shophouses and warehouses, Peranakan houses, "black and whites", and Bukit Brown. With the passing years and fading memories, more Singaporeans, too, began to yearn to keep these gradually dwindling remaining physical links to our past, either for their architectural typology or the history they embody. In some cases, the property owners or members of the public argued to retain the buildings, for example, the old National Library building not so long ago, but they had to make way for development needs.”
“This is an important consideration because members of Cabinet may have differing perspectives, but once the Cabinet decides, members take collective responsibility for the decision. This remains a valid consideration for us. Second, on the work of the Committee. The Terms of Reference of this Committee are to assess (a) the historical and heritage significance of the property; (b) the wishes of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in relation to the property; and (c) the possible plans for the property and the neighbourhood and the options to move forward. As we wanted to get the views of Mr Lee's children, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang were duly informed separately, in writing, on 27 July 2016, that a Ministerial Committee, of which I was the Chairman, had been formed to consider the options for 38 Oxley Road and the implications thereof, and that the Committee would look into various aspects, including what Mr Lee Kuan Yew's thinking on the matter was. I will now elaborate on these three aspects of the Terms of Reference. With regard to the first aspect of the Terms of Reference for the Committee − why does the Government need to get involved in this matter at all? The Government has the responsibility to consider the public interest aspects of any property with historical and heritage significance and has a range of powers to gazette or acquire such property. I should emphasise that the Government not only has the legal powers to act but, indeed, the responsibility to decide on what to do. The Government cannot outsource decision-making on this. Ultimately, the government of the day has to decide and carry the decision. The Government has to carefully consider the merits for each property to be preserved or conserved.”
“Prior to this, work on this issue had been carried out at staff level with interagency consultations as needed, with matters being surfaced by relevant Ministers to me or the Cabinet, without the Prime Minister, when necessary. I had supported the Minister for National Development's proposal, as setting up such a Ministerial Committee would improve coordination and oversight on this matter. I chair this Committee on the property at 38 Oxley Road, and included the relevant Cabinet Members, that is, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu for heritage, the Minister for Law K Shanmugam for land issues, and the Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong for urban planning. This Committee is like numerous other committees that the Cabinet may set up from time to time to study specific issues, for instance, on Smart Nation and Digital Government, Population, National Research and on Climate Change which I chair. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has provided examples of other committees that he chairs, such as for the Changi East Developments. We even have a task force now looking at infant formula. They are all part of the normal working process of the Cabinet, or, indeed, the board of any large organisation. We would rarely need to announce the formation of such committees, as they often relate to internal working processes and coordination within the Government. There is nothing unusual about this. This is similar in approach to Cabinet committees set up by many other governments. These committees ultimately report to the Cabinet, which operates under the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility.”
“And there is no decision required so long as Dr Lee continues staying in the house. This is what Mr Lee wanted and expressed in his will. It might be 20 to 30 years later before a decision needs to be made. However, if Dr Lee chooses to leave earlier, say, within a few months, then the Cabinet and the Government will have to decide, and it would be useful to have studied the different options. Some of us in Cabinet, including me, also felt that it would be a useful element for a future government deciding on the house if it had a set of options that came from Ministers who had personally discussed this matter with Mr Lee. Following the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew on 23 March 2015, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong informed Cabinet on 15 April 2015 that he would recuse himself from all Government decisions to be taken on the house. This is in accordance with the guidelines in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the code of conduct for Ministers. It was proper for the Prime Minister to recuse himself as there is a conflict of interest between his public role as the Head of Government, and his private role as a son of Mr Lee, and, in addition, because he had been bequeathed the property. As the Prime Minister had recused himself, I chair the Cabinet should any deliberations take place on this property. Cabinet had recorded this at its meeting on 15 April 2015. On 1 June 2016, at a Cabinet meeting which I chaired, Cabinet approved the proposal by the Minister for National Development to set up a Ministerial Committee to draw up the range of possible options for 38 Oxley Road.”
“We are recognised for our record of integrity by Transparency International, by the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in their rankings on Global Competitiveness for the transparency and efficiency of our public institutions. This is a key pillar of Government that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our Pioneer leaders have built. The Public Service staunchly believes in and commits itself to living up to the high standards set by Mr Lee and his founding team. Let me now move on to address the questions several MPs have raised about the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road. And I will cover three areas. First, why was the Committee formed? Second, what is the work of the Committee? Third, what are our next steps? First, why did we set up this Committee? There is a significant public interest element involved when considering options for founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's house at 38 Oxley Road. At the same time, the Government has also said that it will pay attention to respecting the wishes of Mr Lee for his house. These considerations are in addition to the due processes that take place for all buildings and structures with heritage and historical value. There is a misconception that the Government is seeking to make a decision now. The Ministerial Committee does not decide. It is merely preparing drawer plans of various options and their implications so that a future government can refer to them and make a considered and informed decision when the time comes to decide on the matter. The Ministerial Committee has made it clear to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and, in particular, to Dr Lee Wei Ling, that neither the Ministerial Committee nor the Cabinet will be making any decision.”
“This is periodically refreshed, and the Code of Conduct is available to all public officers in hard copies and on the Intranet. The Public Service takes integrity very seriously. Public officers must not undertake any activity that can give rise to any perception that official resources are being used for party political purposes. Public officers are also expected to uphold the integrity and the reputation of the Public Service and public confidence in it. This includes protecting the confidentiality of information. Any request for information from the public is not granted automatically but would be carefully assessed on its merits. And this applies to members of the public who happen to be family members of political appointees as well. To ensure that public officers understand and uphold these values, the Code of Conduct is discussed in induction programmes for new public officers. Permanent Secretaries and Statutory Board Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) also lead town halls to explain the Code of Conduct to their officers. These town halls include discussions to help officers understand how to interpret and live the code. As I had informed the House on several occasions, there are avenues for public officers to report suspected misconduct directly to their agency heads or Permanent Secretaries. They may also report to the Head of Civil Service, the Public Service Commission or to enforcement agencies, such as the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Singapore and Singaporeans can justifiably be proud of the hard-earned reputation and long track record of integrity of our Public Service.”
“Mdm Speaker, Members of this House, let me first address the questions by several Members of Parliament (MPs) about the rules governing the conduct of Ministers, political appointees and public officers. Ministers and Members of this House are well aware that our conduct must always be above board. There is a Code of Conduct for Ministers which has been in force since 1954. It was last revised and laid before this House in 2005. Ministers and other political appointment holders are notified of this Code at the start of each term of office and when a new political officeholder is appointed. The Code clearly states that a Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Civil Service's core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty. The Code sets out guidelines on what constitutes private interests, requires Ministers to disclose these private interests and states that they should not influence or support issues in which they have a private interest. Ministers are expected to be scrupulously above board and ensure no real or perceived conflict of interest between their official duties and private interests. As Prime Minister Lee had said in his Ministerial Statement earlier, the Prime Minister sends the Rules of Prudence after every election to all MPs of the PAP. These Rules set out clearly the conduct expected of the MPs, including the need to be proper and above board in their dealings with Government departments and public officers. These Rules are also released to the media. The Public Service is also guided by a Code of Conduct that lays down the principles and rules that public officers must abide by.”
“Employers can tap on various resources to do so, including the WorkPro Work-Life Grant administered by the Ministry of Manpower, which provides up to $160,000 to help companies defray the costs of developing, piloting and sustaining flexible work arrangements (FWAs). Employers can also refer to the Tripartite Advisory on FWAs published by the tripartite partners, which guides companies and supervisors along the journey of introducing and sustaining FWAs in their workplaces.”
“The Government is strongly committed to supporting Singaporeans in their aspirations to marry and raise families. Leave is one of the range of measures to support parents to better manage their work and family commitments. Legislated leave provisions have been progressively enhanced over the years to strengthen this support. In particular, paid Maternity Leave was increased in 2004 from eight weeks to 12 weeks, and this was further extended to 16 weeks in 2008. We have also increased leave provisions to encourage fathers to play a more active role in caring for their children. Most recently, we have legislated two weeks of Paternity Leave from 1 January 2017, and from 1 July 2017, Shared Parental Leave will be raised to four weeks from one week currently. This will give working parents more flexibility to decide on the allocation of leave that best suits their caregiving needs. The Government will be testing the viability of longer parental leave through a pilot scheme in the public sector. At the recent Committee of Supply debate, we announced that the Public Service will provide an additional four weeks of unpaid infant care leave per parent, to be taken within the child’s first year. The pilot will last for three years, to allow us to test the impact of longer parental leave in a variety of work settings and assess whether a nationwide rollout is practicable in future. Given these recent enhancements, we do not plan to increase our legislated leave provisions for parents, including mandatory Maternity Leave, at this point in time. This is to give employers more time to adjust to the leave provisions which come into effect this year. At the same time, employers and co-workers play important roles in shaping a family-friendly workplace culture.”
“According to the latest consolidated figures published as at end June 2016: The resident population, comprised 3.41 million Singapore Citizens (SCs) and 0.52 million Permanent Residents (PRs), totalling 3.93 million. There were 1.67 million Non-Residents (NRs). Employment Pass Holders numbered 0.19 million, S Pass Holders 0.18 million and Work Permit Holders 0.77 million. The rest of the NR population includes foreign domestic workers, dependants of SCs, PRs and work pass holders and students. Tourists and short-term visit pass holders are not included in Singapore's total population (5.61 million) as they are in Singapore only for a short period of time. Based on the population estimates laid out in the 2013 Population White Paper, Singapore's total population could be between 5.8 million and six million in 2020, depending on changes to our birth rates, life expectancy and our social and economic needs. By then, the resident population (comprising SCs and PRs) could be about four million, of which SCs could make up about 3.5 million; the non-resident population then would number about 1.8 million.”
“I recall the Workers' Party has made an issue about registration numbers on voters' slips and so forth. Mr Low may choose not to remember, but those were issues which were raised before, I think even in this House.”
“Mdm Chairman, if I recall, the PAP has always been saying and the Government has always been saying that your vote is secret. The ones who had been saying that the vote was not secret in the past was exactly the Workers' Party until you discovered it was not really such a good idea to say that your vote is not secret. And suddenly, you changed your mind and are now going out to tell people that your vote is secret, for which we are grateful. The Government has been saying that all along and we are glad that you agree.”
“We will continue to provide resources as needed and as available to the Public Service to support our officers in the work that they do. And I think, as a number of Members have pointed out, this is work that is not just for the public officers, and as I have said in my reply, every Member of this House, together with public officers, members of the public and VWOs, we all have a role to play, too.”
“First of all, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for supporting our public officers in making his clarification. Of course, computers have no heart; public servants do. And I would encourage him to continue to encourage his officers who work so closely with him to serve his residents together with him.”
“Yes, Mdm Chairperson, the Public Service still does that. It is now under the PMO Strategy Group and these scenarios cover the entire range of issues which the Public Service and, indeed, Singapore need to deal with − economic, security, social, family and population issues as well.”
“The Public Service will continue to partner Singaporeans and businesses to transform our economy and seize new opportunities. We will continue to ensure good governance and effective execution to prepare Singapore and Singaporeans for the future. Preparing Singapore for the Digital Age”
“This new system will replace and integrate different systems currently deployed in several Ministries and public agencies. The system will automate many manual HR processes and claims, and enhance productivity. Our officers can also benefit from integrated and structured career development and learning platforms. Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about Public Service employment of persons with disabilities. I have asked our public agencies and Ministries to look seriously into this matter to see how we can do more and do better. In recent years, we have introduced a number of initiatives in collaboration, indeed, with SG Enable, the agency set up to help persons with disabilities gain employment. For instance, the Public Service posts up suitable vacancies on SG Enable's job portal. We are also appointing champions among senior management in all our agencies to drive the hiring and integration of persons with disabilities in the organisations. We also partner VWOs to create job opportunities. One of our agencies, Vital, worked with the Autism Resource Centre to hire persons with disabilities to support the digitisation of files. The Public Service has employed about 270 persons with disabilities by end 2016. As an inclusive employer, the Public Service will continue to find ways to expand opportunities for persons with disabilities to take on meaningful jobs in accordance with their abilities. Mdm Chairperson, let me thank Members once again for their strong support for the Public Service. The Public Service has played an important role in Singapore's nation-building. Even as we transform, we remain guided by the core values of Integrity, Service and Excellence.”
“The Public Service will continue to be proactive in implementing family-friendly practices. The Public Service will begin a pilot to enable officers who are starting or growing their families to spend more time with their infants. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will be providing more details later. The Government recognises the contributions and experience of our older workers. The public and private sectors, our unions and workers have worked closely together to provide guidelines for re-employment. To support those who want to continue to work, the Public Service took the lead to introduce re-employment in accordance with these guidelines in July 2011. We review these guidelines regularly. Following our latest review and in consultation with the public sector unions, from 1 July 2017, we will remove wage reductions on re-employment for public sector officers re-employed to the same job grade. These officers will continue to receive their last-drawn salary. This is similar to the practice of most private sector companies. Public officers and pensioners on older medical schemes currently enjoy medical benefits when they are hospitalised in our restructured hospitals. As a continuation of this stay, we will also cover up to 28 days of in-hospital stay at community hospitals from 1 July 2017, providing better access for these officers to the services offered by community hospitals. This also supports MOH's policy to right-site medical care in the most appropriate setting, depending on the medical needs of the patient. To better support HR policies for our public officers, a new integrated HR and payroll management system is scheduled to come online by 2020.”
“To strengthen the engineering leadership pipeline, we have also introduced the PSC (Engineering) Scholarship since last year to attract bright and passionate young people to pursue exciting and meaningful careers in engineering in the Public Service. The Government's focus to build engineering capabilities has led to strong interest in Public Service engineering careers. The Public Service recruited over 1,000 engineers last year, bringing the total to close to 9,000. We also look forward to partnering the private sector and companies in building these digital and engineering capabilities in the public sector to further support Singapore's transformation and the delivery of public services for Singaporeans. Finally, developing our public officers. As Mr Seah Kian Peng has pointed out, the Public Service sets the tone for progressive people practices. We invest heavily in the training of our officers so that they have the skills to do their jobs well, not just today's jobs but tomorrow's jobs. For example, as I had mentioned, the Civil Service College will partner agencies and external providers, such as Coursera, to train 10,000 officers in digital capabilities. This skills-based approach refreshes our officers' skills and will facilitate officers' deployment within and across agencies to optimise job needs and job matches. We have merged a number of career tracks for graduates and non-graduates since 2015 to provide greater opportunities for career progression and development. Once an officer is on the job, it is performance and readiness for bigger job responsibilities that matter. All officers who perform well and show potential for leadership are given the opportunity to participate in development programmes and be considered for higher positions.”
“15 pm Minister Yaacob Ibrahim will touch more on our efforts to support cybersecurity professionals in the appropriate COS. Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked about building engineering capabilities in the public sector. This is another strategic capability. Last year, I announced the establishment of three Centres of Excellence (CentExs) − JTC, GovTech and DSTA. These CentExs have done well. They have partnered many agencies and research institutions to develop innovative technologies and solutions. JTC, as CentEx for infrastructure and facilities management, developed their own integrated smart estate and building operations system called J-Ops. J-Ops uses existing sensors in buildings to monitor and analyse essential services and systems not in one building but in several buildings from a central location. This raises productivity as our facility managers can optimise ops room personnel and technicians over several buildings and facilities. But on top of that, this system also allows them to use data analytics and predictive maintenance to pre-empt issues and reduce energy consumption. This system has the potential to transform how we manage our buildings and facilities. Some issues are further from the public eye, but no less important. This year, we built up capabilities in two new CentExs − JTC for underground caverns and LTA for tunnelling. These are important areas to optimise our land resources. These CentExs will develop and share deep technical expertise within the Public Service and optimise deployment and development of these specialities across the Public Service.”
“Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about the Government's plans to build new strategic capabilities in the Public Service. Two key capabilities that the Public Service needs to strengthen are digital capabilities and engineering. I spoke about the importance of Digital Government earlier. We need to build up our IT professional workforce to support priority areas. We will grow a core group of 250 professionals in GovTech and Cyber Security Agency to drive key digital capabilities in areas, such as data science and cybersecurity, in the Public Service. For example, many of you would be familiar with apps, such as OneService and MyResponder, developed by GovTech in partnership with agencies to improve the lives of Singaporeans. OneService allows Government agencies to respond quickly to citizens' feedback. So, not one app for everything in Government, but at least one app for one service. Through MyResponder, close to 800 volunteers were able to provide timely CPR last year, and I understand that this has led directly to saving several lives. Besides using available technologies, these professionals will work closely with our Universities and industry to experiment with and create new products and services, and enable further policy innovation. It is important that Government agencies trial new technologies and be early adopters. We also need a broader appreciation and application of these new technologies in the Public Service as a whole. We will, therefore, be training 10,000 public officers over the next four years in digital capabilities, such as using more data analytics and data science in policy formulation, service delivery, corporate services and strengthening cybersecurity. 3.”
“We can always do better, we can always be more efficient, we can always be more responsive. To further these efforts, Prime Minister Lee has appointed Minister Ong Ye Kung to champion Public Service innovation. Minister Ong will focus on a number of key cross-cutting areas that require close coordination among agencies. For a start, this will cover two key areas. First, the review of regulations to better support innovation and entrepreneurship. Second, adopting procurement methods that support industry development, and helping our companies and people seize new economic opportunities. These initiatives are in line with the recommendations of the Committee on the Future Economy. Minister Ong will also work with the Public Service on further areas to drive change and innovation. The CFE had highlighted the need to harness technology as a source of comparative advantage for our economy and to protect our national security. Digitisation is creating new industries and transforming existing ones, such as finance, healthcare and corporate services. Within the Public Service, we will continue to use technology to drive innovation, increase productivity, and transform and improve the way that we deliver services to the public. Currently, the responsibility for driving technology adoption in the Public Service is rather dispersed. We are studying how we can better integrate our strategy and processes. This push for a more integrated and technology-enabled Government is crucial in our efforts to build a Smart Nation. I assure Mr Lee that the Public Service will do its part to help Singapore stay competitive and respond quickly to the fast-changing global developments. Third, building new capabilities in the Public Service.”
“It will complement the regulatory measures we have introduced and provide price certainty to industrial facilities for investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. The carbon tax revenue will not be earmarked for specific purposes to retain flexibility. In fact, the way that Mr Kok described carbon tax in British Columbia, it seemed to be the cure-all for all fiscal woes. If that is indeed the case, I am sure the Minister for Finance will be delighted. But, no. We are not earmarking it for specific purposes to retain credibility. But Government funds will support measures, such as enhancing energy efficiency incentives and training workers in energy management. These will help our companies use less energy, save costs and reduce their emissions. Industry consultations on the carbon tax have already begun and will be expanded. We will begin public consultations this month. MEWR will have more to say about the carbon tax and carbon emissions later on. Our companies, particularly those with an established track record in clean energy and energy efficiency, are in a good position to seize green growth opportunities in the region and beyond as countries, including Singapore, take steps to reduce carbon emissions. Second, driving innovation. Mr Lee Yi Shyan highlighted that the Public Service needs to be innovative to position Singapore for the future. Our leaders in the Public Service set the tone for public officers to work together and pursue innovative solutions. The Public Service has embarked on a transformational journey over the past few years to become more innovative, work smarter through technology, deliver seamless services, connect with citizens, and build a future-ready workplace. But this is always a work-in-progress.”
“Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will update Members on these plans later. Climate change is another cross-cutting issue with long-term implications that will be even more keenly felt by future generations. Coordinated actions by all countries are needed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Singapore played a constructive and facilitative role in the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which came into force on 4 November 2016. Singapore is a Party to the Agreement and has pledged to reduce emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. Mr Kok Heng Leun asked how we intend to achieve this. We have identified four strategies in our Climate Action Plan published last year. We will improve our energy efficiency, reduce our emissions from power generation, develop and deploy low-carbon technologies, and encourage collective action among all stakeholders. This plan is an example of whole-of-Government inter-Ministry work which was coordinated by National Climate Change Secretariat, which is now in PMO-SG. We evaluated every single option, what the cost is to the economy and to Singaporeans, and what effect it would have on mitigating carbon emissions. Then, we lined them all up and chose those which were most efficient, made most sense for us. The Minister for Finance has announced in the Budget Speech that the Government will aim to implement a carbon tax from 2019. This is one of the measures which will be efficient and encourage carbon mitigation. A carbon tax will incentivise businesses and consumers to reduce emissions.”
“I take the points raised by Members of this House in the positive spirit for improvement but I hope that Members will rise from time to time, like Mr Seah today, Mr Ganesh or Ms Kuik, to also offer encouragement for the good work of the many public officers who have worked hard and gone the extra mile to serve their constituents and Singaporeans. So, it is in this spirit that, today, I outline four priorities for the Public Service: integrating strategic planning and execution; driving innovation; building new capabilities; and developing our public officers. First, integrating strategic planning and execution. Mr Cedric Foo, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked about coordination among Government agencies and resource management in the Public Service. Two years ago, I announced the formation of the PMO-Strategy Group. Last year, PMO-SG continued its work to strengthen whole-of-Government planning and execution, supporting the Prime Minister and the three Coordinating Ministers to tackle long-term, cross-cutting issues. As part of the consolidation and strengthening of the core centre-of-Government functions, we merged the National Population and Talent Division and the National Climate Change Secretariat into the Strategy Group. As Mr Seah Kian Peng pointed out, there are cross-cutting issues which have longer term impact. Population is certainly one of them. It frames the work of many Ministries − covering areas, such as the economy, healthcare, workforce, infrastructure and defence planning, as Mr Seah correctly pointed out. Most importantly, we will also continue to strengthen the Singapore family with marriage and parenthood measures to support couples to own homes and have children.”
“Thank you, Mdm Chairperson. First, let me thank Members for their views and their strong support for the work of our public officers. Over the past week, Members debated how to position Singapore for the future and move ahead as one people. As challenges become more cross-cutting, the Government needs to be even more closely coordinated in policy formulation and policy execution, and to harness and manage our key national resources more effectively. This will help ensure that the Public Sector is ready to help implement the recommendations of the Committee on the Future Economy and to take Singapore forward. I want to assure Members that our public officers do work tirelessly to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. There are many examples of exemplary public officers who go the extra mile to help those with particular needs or are in distress, from HDB, LTA, WDA, SSOs ‒ the whole alphabet soup, as Mr Seah referred to. Indeed, we recognise such officers each year to encourage everyone in the Public Service to follow their example. However, no system is perfect, and we are constantly striving to do better. Each one of us who serves the public ‒ public officers, Members of this House – and members of the public, too, have a role to play. So, each year, we also recognise members of the public who have contributed to making our public services more responsive and empathetic. Mdm Chairperson, while our public officers at all levels work quietly and tirelessly and do not seek praise, a little encouragement does help.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Public Service does not track the number of ex-offenders employed. Indeed, since 2006, applicants who have had their criminal records spent need not include this information in their application. Recruitment is based on individual merit, where applicants who fit the job requirements most closely are hired. Applicants who are ex-offenders can be appointed, with due regard given to the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, the time that has elapsed since their conviction, and the duties and responsibilities to be assumed. For example, we will understandably be more cautious in hiring ex-offenders for positions where an officer has authority over children. 12.13 pm”
“Social norms shape M&P decisions and these are, in turn, a result of multiple factors. Fortunately, aspirations for marriage and parenthood among Singaporeans remain strong. To get ready for Millennial families, we will need the support of the whole of society – employers, co-workers, community organisations, businesses and the Government – to promote a more family-friendly environment where marriage and parenthood are achievable, enjoyable and celebrated.”
“The Government regularly reviews the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package to see how we can better provide a supportive and family-friendly environment in Singapore. We conduct surveys and studies to better understand the impact and take-up of our measures. For example, we carry out the M&P Survey every three to five years to better understand Singaporeans' attitudes towards marriage and parenthood, including their views on relevant support measures. We also draw on studies by academics and other groups, such as the survey by The Straits Times and Employer Alliance on Work-Life Integration in 2014. Relevant studies of M&P trends in other countries are similarly referenced for insights. In addition, we hold consultations with diverse groups of Singaporeans, including married couples with and without children, singles, students in tertiary education institutes, caregivers of young children, and people sector representatives. Through these consultations, we have received positive feedback that measures, such as the Baby Bonus Scheme, have helped parents defray child-raising costs, while others, such as housing measures, have facilitated young couples' plans to settle down and build their families. The learning points from these studies and consultations have been important in helping us to refine the M&P Package, which has been enhanced progressively and significantly since it was first introduced in 2001. For instance, last year, we announced further enhancements to Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave to better support shared parental responsibility between mothers and fathers. Even as we continue to refine policy measures, we are cognisant that birth rates do not depend only on Government initiatives.”
“The latest certified registers of electors contain the names of all Singapore Citizens qualified as electors as at 1 February 2015. The increase in the number of electors since the last General Election in 2015 and the electoral division with the highest increase will only be known when the registers of electors are next revised. The Elections Department does not make projections on the number of qualified electors and works on the basis of the actual number of electors when the registers of electors are revised.”
“CEP is based on assessments of whether the officer has demonstrated the qualities required for jobs with larger responsibilities. The Public Service Leadership Programme (PSLP) is one example of how officers with demonstrated performance and potential for higher responsibilities are developed. Officers from a wide range of educational, professional and work backgrounds have been placed on the PSLP when they have shown good performance and potential.”
“Madam, the objective of merging the career tracks for graduates and non-graduates is to equalise opportunities for career progression and development. At the entry level, officers are paid based on their assigned job responsibilities and demonstrated qualities, which include leadership and relevant experience. Where an officer does not have relevant work experience, in particular, for those just entering the workforce, their performance in their educational institutions, which includes both academic and non-academic accomplishments, will be taken into consideration as a proxy. Once an officer is on the job, it is performance and readiness for bigger job responsibilities that matter. A non-graduate who has demonstrated the same qualities as a graduate will be given the same development and advancement opportunities. In particular, all officers who perform well and show potential for leadership are given the opportunity to participate in development programmes and are considered for higher positions. This approach applies to all officers, regardless of whether they were scholarship recipients or not. Once the scholarship recipients return from their studies, they are assessed and placed on the same schemes of service and their salaries are also determined in the same way as non-scholarship recipients. Civil service agencies use Currently Estimated Potential (CEP) as one tool to assess officers for their readiness for bigger job responsibilities. An officer's CEP is assessed based on demonstrated "AIM" qualities, which stand for (a) Analytical and Intellectual Capacity; (b) Influence and Collaboration; and (c) Motivation for Excellence. The CEP assessment is not based on the officer's starting educational qualifications.”
“Beyond the child’s infancy, all working parents, including adoptive parents, can take six days of paid childcare leave each per year until the child turns seven years old, and two days each per year when their children are between the ages of seven and 12 years. In addition, parents are eligible for six days of unpaid infantcare leave per parent each year, during the child’s first two years. Employers have provided feedback that even if the overall duration of leave provisions remains unchanged, extending their coverage (for example, beyond the first year of the child’s life), or allowing even more flexibility in sharing the leave between parents, could have an impact on manpower and administrative costs, especially in a time of business uncertainties. We need to balance between providing support for employees with caregiving needs, and employers' concerns on business costs and manpower constraints, as well as the employability of caregivers. Given the significant enhancements made recently, we will not be adjusting the Adoption Leave provisions further, at this point of time. It will be more important and sustainable for employers to provide a family-friendly work environment, such as by having flexible work arrangements in place, and for our wider community to create a more family-friendly environment in Singapore. Employers can tap on various resources to implement flexible work arrangements, including the WorkPro Work-Life Grant from the Ministry of Manpower and the Tripartite Advisory on Flexible Work Arrangements published by the tripartite partners.”
“With the latest enhancements announced on 13 April 2016 which will take effect on 1 July 2017, adoptive fathers will enjoy the same leave provisions as biological fathers. What Mr Louis Ng has proposed goes beyond what is provided for biological fathers. The Government is strongly committed to supporting Singaporeans in their aspirations to get married and raise families. Leave has been one of the key measures to help working parents, including adoptive parents, better manage their work and family commitments. Leave provisions have been progressively enhanced over the years, and several new enhancements will take effect this year, including allowing a portion of Government-Paid Adoption Leave (GPAL) to be converted to shared leave. Specifically, the enhancements are: (i) the second week of paternity leave has been made mandatory from 1 January 2017, which both biological and adoptive fathers are eligible for; (ii) GPAL will be extended from four to 12 weeks from 1 July 2017; and (iii) both adoptive and biological fathers will be able to share up to four weeks from their spouse’s Adoption or Maternity Leave respectively. With these enhancements, adoptive fathers will enjoy the same leave provisions as biological fathers, and working parents (biological and adoptive) will have more flexibility to decide on the allocation of leave that best suits their caregiving needs. Adoption Leave – like Maternity and Paternity Leave – is intended to support parents of infants in their first year after delivery, when infants are more vulnerable and need more care. Hence, usage of the leave is limited to the child’s first year of age.”
“Madam, I thank Mr Leon Perera for agreeing that we should have political safeguards at that debate. He did not clarify. I thank him again for agreeing that we should have political safeguards. 5.57 pm”
“And I quote, "My second question pertains to a question we have repeated a few times. What are the strategies that the Government has to mitigate the risk of politicising the unifying office of the Presidency? No doubt, the politicisation may not have fully materialised for the past EPs that we had. But there is good reason to believe in future Presidential Elections, if let us say, there are 10 candidates and let us say, the winner gets 5% of the vote, or let us say, the campaign ends up becoming bitterly partisan, the office of the President could be politicised. I have not heard any strategy from any Member of the PAP on how this can be managed". And it is quite clear, Mdm Speaker, that he is referring to electing the President. I continue, in Mr Leon Perera's words, "I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam came closest to that and to her credit, she talked about tightening up the rules for partisanship during the Presidential Election campaign. So, what would be the Government's strategy to mitigate that? That is my second question." And, Madam, in my reply to him, I said, "Turning to the risk of politicisation and the possible tightening of rules for the Presidential Elections, the risk of politicisation is that I have already addressed it explicitly just now in my answer but I think what Mr Leon Perera suggests and what the Commission suggests also is to look at the rules and the way that the Presidential Elections are conducted, I think there is merit and I agree with Mr Leon Perera there." As I said, Madam, Mr Perera is not shy to stand up to disagree if he has been understood wrongly and he did not stand up to disagree with me at that point in time.”
“Can I read the record for Mr Leon Perera's clarification?”
“Mdm Speaker, I was very, very clear on that day. I think the Hansard speaks for itself. And when I agreed with Mr Leon Perera, he was listening to me very attentively. And we all know that Mr Perera, how shall I say, is not shy to stand up to clarify a matter if he has not agreed with it at that point in time. And at that point in time when I agreed with him that we should make processes to depoliticise the election of the President, he did not respond at that point in time.”
“Mdm Speaker, I had the privilege of answering the clarification from Mr Leon Perera towards the end of the debate and he specifically asked me whether we would consider the recommendations in the Constitutional Commission to make sure that election methods were not politicised, or election methods were such that the process was not politicised and referred to the speech made by Ms Rahayu. I do not have the Hansard with me, but I stood up and I remembered that I agreed with Mr Leon Perera that, indeed, we should look at these things and we would do so when we enact the processes within this Bill and, indeed, that is what we are doing. I am glad that Mr Perera agreed with me at that point in time.”
“Now, Madam. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. I have explained the rationale for the amendment to the clause in my opening speech. *The amendment reads as follows: "In page 33: after line 30, to insert – "(3) Despite clause (1) – (a) a refusal by the President to approve a budget, revised budget or supplementary budget of an entity specified in the Fifth Schedule; and (b) a decision by the President to disapprove under Article 22B(7) or 22D(6) a proposed transaction by an entity specified in the Fifth Schedule, cannot be overruled unless the chairman of the entity or the chairman of the board of directors of the entity (as the case may be) has made a request to the Cabinet for a resolution under clause (1) to be moved with respect to the refusal or the decision.". [(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, the advice is quite straightforward. It is not normal – Ms Sylvia Lim is a lawyer herself – not the usual thing that is done to publish a lawyer's advice, because that is something which is provided to the Prime Minister. But I would ask the Prime Minister to consider. If the Prime Minister has stated so, I think there is no doubt about it. 7.11 pm”
“Mdm Speaker, I think the Prime Minister said so yesterday. It is in the Hansard. Is the Member saying that the Prime Minister has falsely told the House that this was the advice he received from the Attorney-General's Chambers? And yes, we will be passing a law, the Presidential Elections Act to state so, that these are the designated races, and so forth.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim is correct in that on the entrenchment provisions, we had made some changes to the way the entrenchment provisions operate. That is correct. But it is still true that the CPA has no veto. So, the CPA cannot veto the President and cannot veto the Government. So, that is still true with regard to the entrenchment provisions. But with regard to the safeguards on the Reserves and the safeguards on appointments, there is no change in the powers. I explained extensively in my speech, although it was rather late in the speech, about an hour plus into the speech, the entrenchment provisions. I provided the charts as well to explain that. I am glad that Ms Lim looked at it carefully. That is indeed so. And the purpose of doing so, as I explained, is to have the correct balance between rigidity and adaptability of our Constitutional system. Ms Lim and the WP have expressed, from time to time, serious concerns about gridlock. And, in fact, if you have serious concerns about gridlock, then you should welcome and support these changes. On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the Attorney-General's Chambers' advice. And if not, and you do not think that is correct, I think it is possible if you wish to challenge it judicially.”