Usha Chandradas
Singapore
“A study could also directly engage arts workers, ensuring that any proposed guidelines, if they are issued, will reflect real market conditions and concerns. Ultimately, Madam, salary transparency is not about Government interference or market distortion.”
“This is promising and I have four questions on the Ministry’s future plans. Firstly, has the Ministry performed any assessments on how music festivals can have an impact on tourism and the economy and, if so, what have the results of those studies been?”
“Sir, I would like to seek an update from the Ministry on Singapore's position with regard to three international conventions, namely the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Judgments Convention), the Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of…”
“If it succeeds, it can provide arts workers with stability, opportunities and a strong foundation for long-term careers, one that is driven by genuine consumer interest and demand. Sir, I hope the Government can consider taking these suggestions on board and, with that, I support the Budget.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for his assurance that he will consider my suggestions for the visual arts sector. I also raised a number of questions about how the Culture Pass is going to be administered. Could I ask if the Prime Minister has a response to those questions?”
“I think, if the Minister will recall, I referred to the example of an artist. The example that I talked about was the artist, Lee Wen, in his performance and his works, "The Journey of the Yellow Man". So, with this work, he is basically addressing racial stereotypes and it is with a view to prompting audiences to think about the issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 167 lines we hold for Usha Chandradas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Question 18, Sir. For this question, I would like to declare my interest as an independent director of a Singapore-listed Real Estate Investment Trust (S-REIT). The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): As part of measures announced by the Equities Market Review Group to strengthen Singapore’s equities market, the Government has refined the scope of qualifying investment categories for the Family Office option under the Global Investor Programme (GIP). From 21 February 2025, new GIP applicants under this option, who are required to establish a Singapore-based Single Family Office (SFO) with at least S$200 million of assets under management (AUM), must deploy a minimum of S$50 million into equities listed on approved Singapore exchanges. This enhancement is intended to draw investments into our equities market, which has comparatively less trading liquidity than S-REITs and bonds. In so doing, the Review Group hopes to make Singapore a more attractive location for companies to raise equity capital. SFOs applying for GIP can continue to deploy their remaining AUM in other investment categories including S-REITs. SFOs whose owners are not applying for the GIP are not affected by this change. The criteria for MAS tax incentives for SFOs remain unchanged. SFOs under these schemes can continue to invest their funds into various investment products including S-REITs. The Government will continue to review the GIP to ensure it remains relevant and effective in attracting entrepreneurs and business owners who intend to drive their businesses and investment growth from Singapore.”
“So, with regard to dementia and also the kind of medical issues faced by our inmates – and we understand also that just like anyone else would know, we have an ageing society and similarly, it is reflected in the inmates population – as I have shared in my answer, we will provide the necessary treatment and care, depending on the medical needs of the inmates. Currently, there are three inmates in SPS' custody who are diagnosed with dementia. We look after them, we work with the medical centre and also Changi General Hospital to see what their needs are. So, I want to assure the Member that we will continue to look at it, take care of them and at the same time, making sure that all of them have the opportunity to go through the programmes that are open to the inmates. And from time to time, we do the assessment. We also are part of the international fraternity, whereby we are plugged into the system and we always make sure that we are able to care, and not only caring, it is also about that rehabilitation and re-integration process, so, a through-care process where we want to make sure that the inmates not only serve their sentence, but that they are able to rebuild their lives and be re-integrated into society. I want to thank the Member for her care and concern about this issue, and assure her that we are consistent with her concerns, we share her concerns. And we will do our best to care for the inmates, regardless of what medical conditions they are facing.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his replies. I have three supplementary questions. First of all, would the Ministry consider setting up a dedicated dementia ward in prisons to house prisoners with cognitive problems. As a country, Singapore is expected to attain super-aged status by 2026. I think this is something that we are all familiar with – by 2030, one-in-four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. So, this is a problem that is really going to be very prevalent in our society. At the moment, I understand we do have special assisted living cells to help in the rehabilitation of inmates who have physical impairments. So, could a similar model be explored for those with dementia and related major neuro cognitive disorders? That is my first supplementary question. My second supplementary question is, how regularly does the Ministry conduct assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of current in-prison support systems for inmates with dementia? And my third supplementary question is, whether or not there are established protocols for early screening and diagnosis of dementia, especially amongst elderly, incoming and existing inmates? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I want to assure the Member that for every inmate who comes in, we will do the needs assessment and we also look at the security and risk level in terms of their offence, and assessment of the medical needs as well. This is the premise that we start off with. No doubt they are spending their time there and they are being incarcerated, but they are human beings, just like any of us.”
“Chairman, I have two clarifications. My first clarification is for Minister Edwin Tong and it is on the use of the Culture Pass for the purchase of books. I understand Minister Tong's explanation that the Culture Pass is primarily for participatory experiences. And if I understand him correctly, the reading of books is a primary way in which someone participates in literary arts and this is why book purchases will be covered by the Culture Pass. But I would just like to take the opportunity to make the point that the purchase and consumption of visual art can also be a participatory experience that is very similar in the way that one might consume a book. So, when you buy a local painting or an artwork, you typically try to interpret, analyse and connect with it. In fact, art historians refer to this process as "reading the artwork". So, the terminology that you use is actually identical to what you would use when you are talking about consuming a book. The physical experience is also very similar if you are buying an artwork from a gallery. Many small local galleries do not charge an admission fee for you to enter. So, just like you would enter a bookshop, find a book that connects with you, buy it, take it home, appreciate it and consume it, I think the same can be said for purchases of visual art as well. So, with all of these taken into account, would the Minister be open to reconsidering the exclusion that is presently in place for the purchases of visual art using the Culture Pass credit? My second clarification is for Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling. I thank her for her extensive reply, but I believe that she did not address my cut on salary guidelines for arts workers. So, I would be grateful if she could please address that and reply to my cut.”
“A study could also directly engage arts workers, ensuring that any proposed guidelines, if they are issued, will reflect real market conditions and concerns. Ultimately, Madam, salary transparency is not about Government interference or market distortion. It is about equipping arts workers and organisations with the right tools to make informed decisions. A stronger and more sustainable arts sector is not just about artistic excellence. It is also about fair and competitive working conditions. I hope the Minister will consider these proposals and I welcome further discussion on this point. Improving SEPs' Mental Health and Well-being”
“NCSS has developed skills and salary guidelines which took effect from April last year to improve talent retention and ensure competitive wages in the social services sector. These are issues that are also relevant to the arts. While it may be too early to assess the full impact of the NCSS model, could MCCY consider whether a similar approach could be adapted for the arts sector to provide clearer pay benchmarks and career progression pathways? Second, could MCCY help to address the lack of salary benchmarking in the arts sector? Many arts organisations struggle to set salaries and remuneration due to a lack of publicly available data, especially for freelancers. While some financial information on Institutions of Public Character (IPCs) is available on the Charities Portal, it lacks detailed data on compensation and this makes it difficult even for well-intentioned employers to structure fair wages competitively. Since MCCY already has access to detailed financial reports from arts organisations under its Major Companies Scheme, could the Ministry leverage its access to these reports and publish aggregated, anonymised data on payment structures for employees and freelancers? A preliminary study of salary trends among MCCY-funded major companies would arguably require minimal resources but could offer critical insights into whether pay structures across the sector actually show any consistency. Third, if MCCY’s resources are better allocated elsewhere, could it then consider outsourcing a deeper study on salary guidelines to external researchers? There are arts administrators, economists and industry analysts who can provide valuable insights if given access to relevant data and market players.”
“With digital platforms playing an increasingly central role in how content is consumed, innovative approaches, such as interactive virtual exhibitions, AI-assisted creative tools or gamified experiences, could especially help to bridge the gaps between traditional art forms and younger generations. And I would appreciate any insight the Minister might have on how MCCY has been thinking about these opportunities. Salary Guidelines for Arts Workers Madam, for my final cut, I would like to start by thanking the Minister for his extensive response to my Parliamentary Question last year on whether skills and salary guidelines can be developed for arts workers. I fully agree with the Minister that the development of a competitive and sustainable arts sector is key, but I want to emphasise that salary guidelines are not a distraction from this goal. They are, in fact, a meaningful component of it. I have spoken to many young artists and aspiring arts workers who feel anxious about entering the job market because they have no clear expectations of pay, especially if they seek to be freelancers. Anecdotally, you still hear stories of exploitation where people, especially younger workers, are asked to work for free or without proper pay. Without transparent guidelines, both workers and employers struggle to navigate fair compensation. This can lead to inconsistencies that will affect the sector’s ability to attract and retain talent. With this in mind, I offer three targeted suggestions for MCCY’s consideration. First, could MCCY examine the precedent that has been set by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS)?”
“Art, Technology and Youth Audiences Madam, technology empowers arts practitioners to explore innovative mediums and techniques, pushing the boundaries of both artistic creation and technical innovation. However, as with any new advancement, opportunities will come with risks and challenges. Christie’s, for example, just concluded its first sale of AI-generated art. The artistic community had a mixed response, with some raising concerns over AI’s use of copyrighted works while others embraced its creative potential. Among the highlights of the Christie’s sale was an animation by digital artist, Refik Anadol, and this sold for around S$369,000. We can see that the intersection of art and technology is not just a space for experimentation but also a potential economic driver. That being said, in Singapore, many artists still lack access to the necessary tools or training to integrate emerging technologies into their work. Others may be wary of venturing into unfamiliar territory. It may be too expensive to attend courses to acquire these skills, and there may be concerns over ethical and legal issues. Many artists remain concerned about issues, such as that of artwork ownership rights, intellectual property protection and fair compensation for digital creations. I would like to ask MCCY if it has any specific plans to equip arts practitioners with the skills that they need to engage with new technologies in their creative processes. Beyond access to tools and training, will there be initiatives to educate artists on how to protect their intellectual property rights in the digital realm? On a related note, does MCCY have any plans to use technology to engage younger audiences and deepen their appreciation for the arts?”
“" I have also personally seen the impact of cross-cultural engagement firsthand, at the theatre. At AGAM Theatre Lab's "Tharuthalai Thirutham", I saw audiences of different backgrounds moved to tears by the storytelling, even though not everyone understood Tamil. When watching Nine Years' Theatre's "See You, Anniversary," delivered entirely in Chinese, which is a language I barely understand, I was deeply moved. These experiences show that language is no barrier to emotional connection. Art has the power to create bonds that go well beyond theoretical slogans about racial harmony. To support cross-cultural engagement in the arts, I propose three suggestions. 3.30 pm First, could MCCY provide more funding or logistical support for non-English medium and minority arts groups to market their performances to a wider audience? This could include collaborations with mainstream media, influencers or targeted digital campaigns. Second, could MCCY act as a bridge between these arts groups and philanthropists? These groups could lack direct access to new patrons and facilitating introductions through things like private showcases, receptions or dialogue sessions could help them to connect with new potential patrons or supporters. Third, could MCCY introduce a new recognition platform for philanthropists who support artistic projects that bridge different racial and ethnic communities? At present, the Patron of the Arts Award broadly differentiates donors by the monetary value of their contributions. Perhaps, we could consider a new category of awards, a Cultural Visionary Patron Award, for example, for philanthropists who support arts groups which bridge diverse cultural expressions and accordingly promote racial harmony through the arts.”
“Similarly, when asked about plans to encourage philanthropic giving to minority arts groups, the response was that the Government takes a broad-based approach to arts funding. I acknowledge and am grateful for MCCY's ongoing support for Chinese and minority cultural arts groups, but these groups continue to face challenges. Minority arts groups represent smaller communities and can struggle to gain visibility, especially if their content is not delivered in English. Similarly, arts groups offering Chinese language- or Chinese traditional performances can find it difficult to attract younger audiences and new patrons. Both sets of groups have also shared with me that mainstream philanthropic networks are harder for them to access, making it sometimes difficult for them to fund raise. Yet, the arts have a unique power to transcend cultural boundaries. They can foster emotional connections between different communities and, in so doing, strengthen racial harmony. MCCY should encourage crossover audiences in arts events – that is to say, bringing Chinese audiences to non-Chinese arts performances and offerings, and vice versa. The work of minority and non-English arts groups is about more than just cultural preservation, it strengthens social cohesion as well. When I spoke to Dr Kasinathan, who was a long-term secretary and now patron at the Singapore Indian Fine Arts Society (SIFAS) – which coincidentally celebrated its 75th anniversary this past weekend – I asked him what, to him, was one of the most significant achievements of SIFAS? Dr Kasi told me that he was proud that the organisation "not only created opportunities for students of all races to learn and participate in the Indian fine arts, but that bursaries if required were also equally available.”
“Third, the non-profit sector struggles to attract and retain skilled talent, yet the CMF matching grants cannot be used for staff bonuses or welfare benefits. If we want to professionalise the arts charity sector, we must acknowledge that talent retention is just as crucial as the direct funding of artistic programmes. There is a long-standing misconception that non-profit staff are less valuable in some way than their private or public sector counterparts. Excluding staff bonuses and welfare costs from CMF matching support potentially reinforces this bias too. It could have the effect of undermining our efforts to build a strong, motivated workforce within the arts and heritage charity sector. The CMF is an extremely meaningful initiative, I do not deny this – all I am saying is that the exclusions for the usage of the matching grants, in themselves, send a message about how we view charities' human resources and their legal and compliance obligations. To address these challenges, could MCCY reconsider the restrictions against CMF matching grant use for legal fees, staff bonuses and welfare benefits? Could MCCY also consider expanding the ambit of the CMF, or if the CMF is not the right scheme for this, because I do understand that it is in place for specific purposes, such as to encourage philanthropy, could MCCY then consider introducing a separate grant structure, such that charities which achieve better financial self-sufficiency, are then able to achieve and receive additional Government support, in recognition of their good work? Cross Cultural Appreciation in the Arts In response to my previous Parliamentary Questions, MCCY has stated that it does not collect data on the ethnicity of audiences at arts performances or exhibitions.”
“Mdm Chair, for my first cut, I would like to thank the Government for its provision of a $100 million top-up to the Cultural Matching Fund (CMF) in this Budget and here, I have three points to make for my cut. Currently, the CMF matches donations but not the earned income of registered arts charities. I have heard from some arts charities that this makes fundraising events, like the throwing of gala dinners actually much more "lucrative" than pitching for work or projects. The irony here is that if charities were out in the field securing contracts and paid work, as some charities do, they would be creating a multiplier effect, generating freelance and subcontracting opportunities down the line for other workers and players in the arts. If we expect arts and heritage charities to be self-sustaining to an extent – and not to rely entirely on donations – why not support them more when they take steps to earn their own revenue? CMF backing for earned income would not be out of step with the broader mission of arts charities, it would actually reward sustainability and encourage charities to innovate in finding new revenue streams. Secondly, arts charities are held to high governance standards, yet the CMF matching grants cannot be used to pay for legal fees. These could include fees for advice on compliance, contracts or intellectual property matters. These are essential operational costs that ensure charities remain accountable and that they are legally protected. Excluding them potentially undermines charities' ability to function effectively and sends the implicit message that these kinds of costs are not "necessary" operational costs.”
“This is promising and I have four questions on the Ministry’s future plans. Firstly, has the Ministry performed any assessments on how music festivals can have an impact on tourism and the economy and, if so, what have the results of those studies been? Secondly, is MTI engaging with the local music community to gather feedback on how music festivals can support their needs? Thirdly, has any funding been allocated for the development of these music festivals under the tourism development funds or otherwise? Finally, is there a timeline in place so that the music community and general public can be updated on future developments?”
“I hope the Ministry can consider these suggestions and provide updates on its plans for Singapore's creative industries in the development of the JS-SEZ. Future Plans for Music Festivals My second cut is on Singapore’s future plans for music festivals. These festivals serve as an important meeting point for musicians, industry professionals, fans and the general public to create meaningful shared experiences and a lasting sense of community. They also offer substantial economic and soft power benefits. This is something that our regional neighbours have managed to successfully harness. Thailand’s Wonderfruit Festival, for instance, has evolved into a globally acclaimed event, attracting international visitors and elevating the country’s cultural prominence. There is a widely held impression in the public sphere that the music festival scene in Singapore is far less vibrant than it was some years ago. To be clear, in my use of the term “music festival” I am referring to outdoor music events with a running theme, featuring more than three acts, and fringe activities like food and beverage stalls or artwork displays. A Straits Times article in October last year noted that many events, A Straits Times article in October last year noted that many events, such as Baybeats, Mosaic Music Festival and the Singapore International Jazz Festival, all debuted between the 2000s and mid-2010s. However, of all of these festivals, only Baybeats remains. It features mostly niche local and regional acts, as well as free admission. I note that there has been some recent movement in the scene. The Yuewen Music Festival debuted in Singapore in December 2024, and the Sunda Music Festival is scheduled to take place in April this year.”
“Chairman, my first cut has to do with the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) and whether specific initiatives have been put in place or will be put in place in order to support the arts community in opportunities overseas. I note that the arts and creative industries have not been expressly included in the 11 identified economic sectors of focus for economic cooperation. One immediate area of interest to local artists is that of affordable studio spaces. I have heard of Singapore artists seeking rental spaces in Johor Baru due to high costs in Singapore. In fact, one common refrain in the local art scene is that the artwork produced locally tends to be small in size, simply because artists cannot afford large studio spaces for production. Given the JS-SEZ’s goal of enhancing cross-border collaboration, are there plans to facilitate artist-friendly rental agreements, co-working studio spaces, or grant schemes to encourage creative businesses to expand within the zone? Could there also be bilateral initiatives, such as cross-border artist residencies, public art projects, or co-organised arts festivals, to connect Singapore and Malaysian creatives into the larger regional arts ecosystem? These initiatives could well be integrated into the economic sector of tourism which has been identified as an area for potential cooperation between the two countries. As we develop the JS-SEZ together with our partners, it is important that arts and culture are not sidelined in favour of purely commercial interests. I hope that MTI can work with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, and the arts community to explore ways to leverage this partnership so that we can support artists in securing affordable workspaces and good cross-border creative opportunities.”
“Sir, I would like to seek an update from the Ministry on Singapore's position with regard to three international conventions, namely the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Judgments Convention), the Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will, (International Wills Convention) and the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults. Becoming a signatory to these conventions could strengthen Singapore's position as a global wealth management and family office hub. It could enhance legal certainty in cross-border disputes, simplify estate and succession planning for internationally connected families, and provide greater safeguards for vulnerable individuals who are based in Singapore but who have legal or financial interests across multiple jurisdictions. I would appreciate insights from the Ministry on any ongoing considerations, potential challenges or timelines for Singapore to join these conventions. Optimising State Properties”
“I thank the Prime Minister for his assurance that he will consider my suggestions for the visual arts sector. I also raised a number of questions about how the Culture Pass is going to be administered. Could I ask if the Prime Minister has a response to those questions?”
“If it succeeds, it can provide arts workers with stability, opportunities and a strong foundation for long-term careers, one that is driven by genuine consumer interest and demand. Sir, I hope the Government can consider taking these suggestions on board and, with that, I support the Budget.”
“This ensures that investors' capital will directly benefit the local economy. GIP will be refined this year with the specific aim of strengthening the competitiveness of Singapore's equities market. The scheme actually already includes arts businesses within its scope of qualifying industries, which is an important inclusion, but more can be done to connect arts businesses, especially promising startups, with these potential investors. I do not think that many arts businesses are even aware of this option for fundraising. As I have previously raised in an Adjournment Motion, the Government could look to Creative UK as a case study. This network supports the United Kingdom's (UK's) creative industries by providing scale-up financing, connecting investors with arts entities and educating arts groups on securing funding through equity, debt and grants. A similar centralised networking portal in Singapore would help local arts entities to access investment opportunities and financial support more effectively. I hope the Government will, at the very least, consider engaging with financial and arts institutions, gallerists, dealers, collectors, arts business owners and artists. Together, they could create a working group or a task force to embark on a more comprehensive study on how structured financial mechanisms can be put in place to better support Singapore's visual arts creative economy. I will not deny that there are different views on this point, the idea of mixing art with commerce can always be a little bit controversial. But if viable, these measures can ensure that Singapore's art ecosystem is not just vibrant but economically robust.”
“It could be advised by expert advisory panels, comprising investment professionals, financial institutions, art and culture leaders and economists, to ensure that financial sustainability is coupled with proper corporate governance. Just as the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme seeks to attract capital from institutional investors, family offices and private entities, an art investment fund could potentially do the same. It could position local art as a credible alternative asset class while ensuring that artists, collectors and galleries benefit from greater financial participation. If the art investments are successful, a percentage of profits can also then be channelled back into arts charities, adding a useful social mission as well to the investment concerned. Beyond liquidity, MAS' focus on tax incentives, regulatory streamlining and research development grants to encourage local listings, mirrors the structural support that Singapore's art market could also stand to benefit from. We should take a closer look at our artwork appraisal and valuation capabilities as well as the incentives and reliefs that we can offer in terms of direct and indirect taxes. I have cited examples of what other countries have done in both of these areas in previous speeches, and there is no shortage of reference points to start a comprehensive review of the various financial possibilities for our visual art market. There are, of course, existing measures that are and continue to be useful. The Global Investor Programme (GIP), for example, requires foreign investors to deploy a portion of their wealth into qualifying investments in order to be eligible for Singapore Permanent Residency.”
“A useful analogy here is perhaps that of the second-hand designer handbag market. One reason why people do not hesitate to buy Louis Vuitton handbags is because they know that they can resell them easily. The same principle should apply to art. A strong secondary market would give buyers the confidence to invest more freely. If local art is seen as a good investment, buyers will be encouraged to acquire it and not just blue-chip pieces. There could be interest in spotting "the next big thing" as well, in terms of emerging artists. As more buyers see investment value in collecting Singapore art, resale activity would increase, making it easier for collectors to trade works. This cycle benefits not just artists and galleries, but also auction houses, dealers and visual art-related businesses, such as framing, conservation and art logistics entities. The third point I would like to make is that sovereign wealth funds are already recognising art's value. In a similar but not fully identical point, Abu Dhabi's ADQ recently acquired a stake in Sotheby's, signalling institutional confidence in art-related assets. If other nations see strategic merit in high value art-related investment, why not Singapore? If good returns are achievable, perhaps the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) or Temasek could consider creating a dedicated local art investment portfolio, perhaps parked in a fund structure and focusing on blue-chip works alongside some experimental pieces. Investment returns could then be derived from things like capital appreciation, leasing and financing models. Such a Government-backed art investment fund could catalyse institutional and private participation and send a strong market signal.”
“According to the report, between 2019 and 2023, Singapore had expanded its share by value of artworks from 1% to 5% of the global trade. Singapore also had the highest proportion of new collectors, at 42% and spent the most on new and emerging artists' works in 2023 and the first half of 2024. So, what does these statistics show? They point to clear opportunities: the local art market is showing signs of growth, new collectors are entering, and buyers are financially driven. While art education and awareness remain crucial for long-term demand, we must also meet consumers where they are. And we could perhaps do this by recognising and leveraging their investment mindset to further develop Singapore's art market. The lack of a vibrant resale market limits participation by buyers. The owners of the Teng Collection, a private art collection and authors of art investment guide Godalisation, as well as other collectors and business owners, have highlighted to me that the absence of a structured secondary market in Singapore is one reason why demand for local art has not yet reached its full potential. To this end, they would like to advocate for the establishment of a Government-backed art fund to support the sector. There have been very interesting and dynamic recent entrants to the secondary art market, such as the startup Art Again, an online marketplace for pre-owned art, and We Are Art Collectors – the fractional art ownership platform of Artualize Gallery. Some galleries as well do engage in secondary sales. However, without greater liquidity, buyers hesitate to enter the market. After all, would we not be more motivated to buy art if we knew that it could be resold and that our capital could be recycled?”
“Let me explain where this idea comes from and why it might work and, here, I declare my interest as a very occasional, hobbyist purchaser of art in my personal capacity. Art is a valuable alternative asset class, has a low correlation to traditional markets and can act as a hedge against volatility. A 2021 Nomura report suggests that contemporary art as an asset achieved an annualised return of 14% between 1995 and 2020. Singapore's own artists are seeing extraordinary sales results. Georgette Chen's "Still Life With Big Durian" sold for S$2.47 million in 2024. This was a 40-fold increase in price from its last auction in 1998. In Singapore Art Week this year, the works of Singapore women artists Kim Lim and Melissa Tan saw promising record-breaking sales. Our local artists are also making a splash internationally, with a record number of them being represented at the recent 60th Venice Biennale. Our local gallerists have also shown remarkable business acumen and the members of the Art Galleries Association Singapore and many other galleries and dealers have done plenty to raise the commercial profile of local artists both in Singapore and overseas. Public endorsement of local art investment has the potential to strengthen the secondary market. Currently, art acquisition is costly, with added expenses for storage, framing and preservation. The Art Basel and UBS Survey of Global Collecting found that Singapore collectors are highly financially motivated. From the report, while the highest-ranking motivation for buying art was that of "self-focus and pleasure" in almost all markets surveyed, Singapore was the only market where financial motivations ranked even higher. So, we even beat Hong Kong in this regard.”
“Smaller, independent arts organisations must have fair access to the scheme to promote a more vibrant and inclusive arts ecosystem. Lest it sound like the arts community is less than supportive of this programme, with all the various questions that have emerged, let me be clear that everyone whom I have spoken to in the community is enthusiastic about this initiative. The excitement is palpable, such that additional questions I have come across include whether the scheme can be expanded, before it has even formally kicked off. Artists want to know if it can include, not just local events, but also purchases of local art. I see from guidelines that were issued this week that the scheme will eventually include the purchase of local books. So, will there eventually be an expansion as well to local art? There are also questions about whether the scheme will be reviewed before 2029 or 2030 and whether there is scope for it to be enlarged or topped up with more even credits before its expiry. The Culture Pass is a very clever initiative, because it goes towards creating demand for arts and heritage performances and events. In a similar vein, I would like to take the opportunity now to float some ideas for demand-side initiatives that could also boost the visual arts sector. Here, we can draw inspiration from the suite of tax and financial incentives that were announced in this Budget to support and encourage corporate listings in Singapore. From speaking to collectors, business owners, artists and other stakeholders several ideas emerged. First, would the Government consider the creation of a Government-backed art investment fund, with local artworks as underlying assets?”
“Particularly, there is a question as to the proportion of ticket sales that will be allocated as artist fees, as opposed to being retained by arts intermediaries. This is not an easy question to address because it is very much an issue of commercial practice and relative bargaining power between artists and event organisers. In a perfectly ideal scenario, the Government could set guidelines to ensure fair distribution of ticketing funds across all players in an arts or heritage event. But this could also take away the autonomy of arts groups to plan their own affairs. It might create additional administrative burdens and reporting obligations for the groups involved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will continue, as part of its larger mission through the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), to educate artists about their legal rights. This way, artists will be empowered to negotiate for fair remuneration and to reject unethical practices, should they take place, in Culture Pass-funded events. Another potential issue that has come up is that of ticket wastage. If credits are used to book tickets, but attendees fail to show up, valuable resources may be lost. Will the Government put in place a refundable deposit system, or will penalties be imposed for repeated no-shows, such that Culture Pass holders will be encouraged to use their credits responsibly? I also hope the Government ensures that the benefits of the Culture Pass scheme are equitably distributed across diverse arts groups and not just dominated by the larger, more established institutions. The Government has announced that independent practitioners can also qualify for the Culture Pass scheme and I hope that they will be well-represented in the final selection of chosen entities.”
“First, will the Culture Pass be transferable, or can unused credits be donated to arts charities, in the same way that can be done for CDC Vouchers? Can credits be shared among family members and friends? If not, what provisions exist for those who are unable to use the Culture Pass due to severe health or mobility issues? While the push for inclusivity in the arts has been very strong, some individuals, for example, those who are bedridden or who are in advanced stages of dementia and, therefore, they are unable to control their moods and behaviour, people in these groups may find it nearly impossible to attend events in person. Caregivers may then struggle to find suitable options. I recognise that there is a risk of profiteering if credits are made transferable and I also see how transferability could dilute the scheme's intent, which is, actually, to encourage personal cultural participation. But it would, however, be good to know if there is any plan at the moment for what will happen to unused or unusable credits. Secondly, will the Government track average ticket prices before and after the implementation of the Culture Pass and will it intervene if necessary, if arts groups distort ticket prices? The concern here is that arts groups could inflate ticket prices, knowing that a subsidy is now available. If this happens, it could have the effect of reducing the impact of Culture Pass credits which, really, have been issued to make arts and heritage events more affordable to the general public and not less affordable. Some artists have also expressed concerns about whether the Culture Pass funds will directly benefit them.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the Budget debate. I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for his announcement of a very generous Budget. It is one that is inclusive and diverse and I support it fully. My speech today will cover two key topics. First, the Culture Pass and second, a proposal to support Singapore's visual arts sector. This proposal takes inspiration from the strong financial backing that we have seen in this Budget for businesses that are seeking a listing on the Singapore Exchange (SGX). In this speech, I would like to suggest similar financial mechanisms to strengthen our local visual arts scene. But first, the Culture Pass. It is a very commendable initiative that makes arts and cultural experiences more accessible to Singaporeans. Last year, I filed a Parliamentary Question after hearing from arts businesses about their challenges. I heard that even if they were located in the heartlands, not all arts businesses were eligible for the Community Development Council (CDC) Voucher redemption scheme. They would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. This raised concerns that the arts were not being recognised as an essential part of everyday life. With the Culture Pass now being issued broadly to every Singaporean aged 18 and above, the Government has sent a clear signal: the arts are essential to our society, just like any other basic necessity. This money could have been spent in many different ways, but it has come to the arts and this is a very important and powerful message. Since the initiative was announced, some questions have emerged from the arts community and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight them here.”
“I think, if the Minister will recall, I referred to the example of an artist. The example that I talked about was the artist, Lee Wen, in his performance and his works, "The Journey of the Yellow Man". So, with this work, he is basically addressing racial stereotypes and it is with a view to prompting audiences to think about the issues. So, if we actually look at the work, I do not think we can see a clear message there to bring about a removal of the matters that he is addressing. But if you consider the artist's intention in the work that he is producing, you will see that perhaps a different conclusion could be reached.”
“Clause 40(6), my apologies, where we have to look at the matters of good faith.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have one clarification. Could the Minister address my question on how the defence at clause 40(6) will be interpreted? Is it something that is meant to be interpreted narrowly or will it be considered broadly with regard to the full context of the situation at hand that is being examined? So, specifically, if we have an artwork here that is the subject of consideration, will we consider things like the artist's intention as well as the work that is the subject of the consideration?”
“In this regard, some guidance on the interpretation of clause 40(6) will be helpful. I know it is not possible for the Ministry to provide an exhaustive list of guidelines on this point, but I hope that the Minister can assure us that the terms “good faith” and “bring(ing) about the removal of those matters”, as these phrases are set out in clause 40(6), that these phrases will be broadly interpreted. Racial harmony is indeed the cornerstone of our society, but true harmony is achieved through through open and meaningful dialogue. Our artists play a very important role in facilitating this. It is essential to strike a balance between preventing harmful content and allowing the arts to thrive as a platform for meaningful discourse. Sir, I understand the Minister’s explanation earlier that a number of the Bills’ provisions actually port over and consolidate existing laws but given that we have a new proposed Bill to consider, I think it is also a good opportunity to relook some of the issues as they have been presented before the House today. Sir, I support this Bill and I look forward to the Minister's response to my clarifications.”
“It is the spirit of nobility, the glow of precious gold. The warmth and abundance of harvest, the power and faith in temples. In a different sense, yellow can also be the colour of dangerous hazards, confidential secrets, pornography and vices. It is also the colour of the persecuted and the oppressed.” So, as you can see, in the realm of art, messaging is often nuanced, layered and open to interpretation. Audiences are invited to engage critically and to interpret the works in their own way. This is what art is all about and why it is so powerful and why we value it. Last year, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong committed an additional $100 million of funding to support the arts in recognition of this value that it has in our society. In the context of this Bill, however, the element of audience interpretation can make it challenging for an artist to definitively prove that their work is intended as a call for change, rather than being misinterpreted as an endorsement of the very issues that the work seeks to critique. This ambiguity may then make it difficult for artists to rely on the defence provided at clause 40(6) of the Bill. Many artistic works critically examine race, social injustice and history. These should not be viewed at the get-go as acts of hostility but rather, as efforts to foster deeper understanding. Australia’s Racial Hatred Act introduced in October 1995, for example, provides a defence where a person's conduct was done reasonably and in good faith in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work. The proposed Bill today does not go as far as that. We do not have a blanket exemption or protection for artistic works, but we must protect our ability to discuss and reflect on history without fear of heightened state intervention.”
“The work, if Members have not seen it, involves the artist, Lee Wen, a man who is of Chinese ethnicity, covering himself with yellow paint and placing himself into deliberate encounters and situations all over the world. These are then photographed, filmed or sometimes witnessed by an audience. As explained by the Singapore Art Museum, “the body of work is an exploration of identity and ethnic and cultural stereotypes.” If we apply clause 40(1) to this body of work, it is possible to form the view that Lee, if he were alive today, might be considered as having knowingly ridiculed Chinese ethnicity. He would have accordingly committed an offence under clause 40(1) when exhibiting his work. Could he then rely on the defence in clause 40(6)? Based on the wording of the Bill, I believe it is not so clear. Art historians would certainly argue that the work was made in “good faith” but can it be said to have been made or displayed “in order to bring about a removal of the feelings of ridicule?” Well, I would say yes, on balance, but I would also mention that this message is not immediately apparent from the images that are presented in the body of work. Certainly, the works are Lee’s expression of his frustration at being racially stereotyped when he was overseas, but can we say from simply looking at the work that there is a clear enough expression of a desire to bring about the “removal of ridicule”? I am not sure that we can. Lee’s own declarations may not necessarily shed light on the matter either. Here is an example of something Lee himself has said on the topic in a 1994 artist statement. He said: “I’m already yellow. Why do I still paint myself yellow? Yellow is the colour of the sun, the colour of the moon, the colour of the river that runs in the old country.”
“It should not be the case that art works, books or plays that critically examine racial issues could be banned or censored based on mere speculation. Could the Minister clarify whether specific guidelines will be used to determine when an artistic work might be regarded as “information or material” connected to acts that are “likely” to cause racial disharmony? My sixth and last question has to do with the interpretation of clause 40 of the Bill. Under this clause, an offence is committed if a person incites enmity, hatred, ill will, hostility, contempt or ridicule against a racial group in Singapore. The offence applies if the person knows that their actions are likely to cause this effect. It is, however, a defence under clause 8(6), if the accused person can show that he pointed out the offending matters in good faith and to bring about a removal of those matters. Looking at the strict wording of the Bill, it seems possible that if an artist were to produce, say, a video work about racial tensions in Singapore’s history, or if a theatre company stages a play on colonial era racial policies, that these works might be at risk of being deemed to “incite feelings of ill will.” Let me give the Members a more specific example. The late artist Lee Wen’s “Journey of a Yellow Man” is a well-known performance art series in Singapore’s art history. It is a work that is studied by art historians and is taught to art students. It is part of the collection of the National Gallery Singapore and it is also a part of other prominent collections overseas. Lee Wen himself was awarded the Cultural Medallion in 2005.”
“Instead, we are better served as a community by ongoing initiatives that seek to rehabilitate and educate. In a similar spirit, if we regularly make the deliberations of the Council public, this could serve as a very powerful educational tool for the broader community. It would not only foster greater transparency but also prompt deeper public engagement and feedback on the decisions that are made. This kind of input would offer authorities valuable insights into contemporary cultural standards. It will help them to ensure that their decisions remain attuned to the evolving sentiments of Singaporeans. My fourth question is on whether the Ministry will be releasing examples of what constitutes harmful content that would potentially be subject to Restraining Orders under clause 8 of the Bill. Will we be seeing regulations which offer examples and guiding principles? Restraining Orders can be used to prohibit the communication or distribution of “information and material”. The definition of “information and material” at clause 8(8) appears to be wide enough to cover visual, literary, musical and performance art works. Read in its entirety, these works can be removed from circulation altogether if the Minister is satisfied that the conditions in clause 8(1) are met. I think that clear examples will be helpful to minimise subjective interpretation and assure the arts community that legitimate artistic works will not fall afoul of the law. Can the Minister also clarify how the phrase “likely to commit” in clause 8(1) will be construed? Restraining Orders can be issued if the Minister is “satisfied” that a person is “likely” to commit offences. This is clearly a pre-emptive power and one that should be exercised very carefully.”
“Secondly, in a related point, I would like to ask the Minister, if the potentially offending acts or content in question are artistic works, will the Council be open to consulting with specialists in the field when making its decisions? For instance, in cases where the contentious material is a painting, would the Council seek expert opinions from senior artists, art historians and academics specialising in the visual arts? If the work in question is a literary piece, would the Council then engage with experienced publishers, authors and editors to ensure a well-rounded and informed evaluation? Clause 33(5)(a) of the Bill alludes to the Council having the power to invite “any person” to attend before it and I believe that it would provide much assurance to the arts community if the Minister can confirm that specialist opinions will be obtained where artistic work and content is concerned. Thirdly, can the Minister clarify whether there will be opportunities for the deliberations of the Council to be made public and if so, what the frequency of disclosure is expected to be? The Schedule to the Bill states that Council members and officers must keep meeting discussions confidential except when sharing with the President, Cabinet, Minister, other Council members or officers, or if they are expressly authorised to make disclosures by the Minister. I would like to make the point here that it is important for the public to understand the basis for the Council’s decision-making. One strength of this Bill is that it acknowledges the complexity of racially motivated harmful acts. In introducing community remedial programmes in clause 41, it recognises that the remedies for racial intolerance are not to be found only in criminal sanctions.”
“The question of the extent to which the state should intervene in censorship of the arts is not a new one and it is one that has been addressed by all the previous arts Nominated Members of Parliament at one point or another. I, too, would like to add my voice to theirs in the context of the Bill that we are debating today. First, I would like to ask if the Minister can provide some assurance to the arts community that the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will be composed of some representatives from the literary, visual, performing and musical arts sectors? At the moment, the Schedule to the Bill only refers to Council members as being “representatives of all major racial and religious communities” and “persons who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations.” The Council has very wide powers to review racial content Restraining Orders and it is heartening to see that the views of the Minister will be subject to some amount of independent oversight by the Council and the President. A common refrain amongst the arts community – and I, too, feel this way sometimes when dealing with bureaucracies – is that administrators with little interest in or knowledge of the arts may not have a good understanding of how artistic production takes place, why artists behave in the way that they do, what artists intend to achieve and why the preservation of their voices is important. Artist representation on the Council is not only desirable, I would go so far as to say it is essential to maintaining public confidence and providing assurance that this new proposed law both safeguards the space for artistic expression while protecting racial harmony.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support the Bill, but I have some clarifications on the extent to which the Bill might have an effect on artistic expression. I think many of us here today are agreed, and I certainly am of the view, that every civilised society has some measure of censorship in it. It should not be the case that hate speech is allowed to run unchecked in society just because we want to adhere to some imagined or theoretical principle on freedom of speech. However, as it is the case with most things, the most extreme cases of racially harmful content are arguably the easiest ones to address. Where it is quite clear that offence has been caused and is intended, and maliciously phrased expressions and slurs are used, it is relatively easy for society to come together and band against these acts. The problem, however, lies in the grey areas where, for example, it is not immediately clear whether the acts in question are likely to incite "enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility” against a particular race or “insult, vilify, denigrate, threaten or abuse” another race, as these terms are set out in clauses 8 and 40 of the Bill. I appreciate that the Government does not have an easy task. Overly strict measures could suppress future dialogue while inaction might encourage irresponsible and harmful behaviour. This Bill is a matter of particular concern to Singapore’s arts community. Our arts and cultural groups have long been engaged in thoughtful, critical and necessary conversations about identity, history and race. These are voices that should be nurtured. If we truly believe in an inclusive and harmonious society, then we must also believe in the power of art, storytelling and critical discourse to bring us closer together.”
“I thank the Minister for his very extensive replies to all the questions that have been raised, including my own. I just have one very brief question for the Minister. Does the Ministry have a window of time in mind, after which it will review the definition of the protected characteristic of sex, as it is set out in clauses 8C and 10?”
“The Minister yesterday alluded to updates being made to the TGFEP, so I look forward to hearing his further explanations and clarifications later. I would also like to ask if any measures would be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons. For example, would the Ministry work with LGBTQ+ groups on the ground to conduct training for TAFEP and other frontline MOM staff to ensure that cases of discrimination are dealt with seriously and professionally, and to encourage reporting of such incidents, when they do take place? Finally, I would like to ask if there any plans for the law to be re-examined at a specific point in the future and to consider whether the exclusions at clause 10(2) may be removed or amended? MOM has indicated in its factsheet on the proposed Bill that tripartite partners will review the exemption set out at clause 4(1) of the Bill in five years’ time. If so, will a similar reconsideration of clauses 8(c) and 10 also take place? A number of countries, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand have codified provisions against workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexuality. If we in Singapore were to change our position in future, we would certainly not be alone in doing so. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“Close to half of the people surveyed reported some form of harassment at the workplace. However, the report also noted that among the participants who had experienced discrimination and harassment, only a very small number had actually reported their experiences to their respective companies, to MOM or to TAFEP. Some of the reasons for this included a fear of retaliation, social stigma and the expectation of little support if reports were actually made. We can see how this fear creates a harmful loop. Victims remain unheard, leading those in positions of authority to mistakenly believe that there are no issues of concern. As a result, protections remain inadequate and those facing workplace discrimination continue to suffer quietly. So, my questions for the Minister are these: first, Did the Ministry take into account the research and feedback from the ground which indicate that LGBTQ+ individuals tend to under-report incidents of workplace discrimination and harassment? If so, how then was the decision arrived at, to exclude sexuality and gender identity from the protected characteristic of “sex”? Secondly, how will the Minister ensure that employers do not discriminate against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, given that the proposed law explicitly excludes these two traits? Is the Minister able to provide any assurances that discrimination against employees on the basis of their gender identity and sexuality, will not be tolerated by the Ministry? For example, will the Minister consider including specific protections, templates and resources for LGBTQ+ individuals through TAFEP and the TGFEP? Will any measures be put in place to ensure that reporting systems are accessible, trusted and effective for LGBTQ+ persons?”
“Coming back to the definition of sex, very recently, this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code. In connection with this, many Members on both sides of the House reiterated their views that discriminatory behaviour towards people on account of their sexuality should simply not be tolerated. So, I do not think at all that the Government intends to send the message to the LGBTQ+ community that discrimination against them is in any way permissible. I was also heartened to hear the Minister yesterday say that no one would be turned away with their workplace grievances just because they do not happen to be covered by the Bill. The Minister seems to have taken a very strong approach towards ensuring that tolerance is displayed by employers and by members of the public. So, I hope the Minister takes the opportunity during this debate to assure the LGBTQ+ community that their rights in the workplace will be protected, regardless of the wording in clause 10(2) of this Bill. I note from a Straits Times article in November 2024 that the protected characteristics set out in clause 8 of the Bill account for 95% of workplace discrimination complaints which have been made to MOM and the TAFEP. On one level, this is a very logical way to proceed. However, we should not forget that it is also possible for discrimination to exist in the absence of formal complaints. The report Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace: The Lived Experiences of Singapore LGBTQ+ Individuals, raises some notable feedback. According to the report, which was based on a survey of around 700 respondents, almost one third had experienced at least one form of discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“At the explanatory note on clause 17, there is a statement there that when an employer dismisses someone on the ground of the race of that person’s husband, this will not be considered as discrimination under the new proposed law. Speaking as someone who actually does have a husband of a different race, this was slightly alarming for me to read in the Bill. I understand that given the prescriptive approach that has been adopted by the Government in this piece of legislation, certain lines have to be drawn and clear positions have to be elucidated. To put it another way, when lists are made, there will always be questions on why certain things are included and others are left out. To an extent, this is just something inherent in the structure of the legislation that has been adopted. I think most members of the public and Members of this House can understand that. But that being said, it is important too that the specific wording in the Bill does not send out unintended messages that seem to actually endorse certain acts of discrimination. To this end, it would be good if the Minister could explain the basis behind the explanatory note on clause 17 and on how members of the public are expected to interpret it. Yesterday, I note that the Minister has explained and mentioned that the acts that are described in the explanatory note would be caught by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and just not by this Bill. But notwithstanding his explanation, I would like to ask, was it then necessary to include an example like this in the Bill? Could the explanatory note have been clearer that such acts are very much discriminatory, even if they are not covered by this Bill?”
“A person’s gender identity and expression, as well as their sexuality, are a part of who they are. They are not lifestyle choices that can be changed on a whim. While the proposed law supports individuals who have undergone sex re-assignment procedures, it seems to ignore the reality that the transition from one gender to another is something that happens over time and involves more than just surgical changes. Sometimes, individuals may not even choose to undergo surgical procedures. This is a complex process and it involves medical, psychological and social aspects. Individuals in the process of transitioning, or who choose not to surgically transition, can also be susceptible to discriminatory practices in the workplace. Members of the arts community who are also members of the LGBTQ+ community have told me that they feel very concerned about the additional exclusions at clause 10(2) of this Bill. These exclusions could have the effect of reiterating the fact that characteristics which are relevant to the community will resolutely not have the protection of this law. This could in fact signal to the wider population, as well as employers, that discrimination on the basis of one’s sexuality and gender identity, are not sufficiently serious or valid concerns. Taken to an extreme, some might interpret this as the Government condoning this kind of workplace discrimination. It could also inadvertently signal to employers that such discriminatory practices will go largely unpunished. This is not the only place where we see a similar kind of signalling in the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill represents a significant step forward in codifying protections against discrimination in the workplace, and I support it. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support for clause 8(a)(i), which considers "language ability" as a protected characteristic. Clause 20 goes on to clarify that the ability to "read, speak, write or understand a language" is not considered necessary for the performance of a job, just because other employees happen to regularly communicate in that language. This express statement is something that deeply resonates with me as a minority woman. Many Singaporean minorities, including myself, have experienced being in work situations where the majority of their co-workers and, sometimes, even their superiors have preferred to communicate in Mandarin. In these cases, they have little regard for the people around them who may not be able to understand what they are saying. This kind of behaviour is isolating and goes against Singapore’s core commitment to multiculturalism. I wish to thank the Government for being clear that this kind of discrimination, if performed in connection with the acts set out in Part 4 of this proposed law, is totally unacceptable. (In English): Notwithstanding my particular support for this aspect of the Bill, I have a few clarifications for the Minister. My main clarifications in my speech are on the definition of “sex” as it is set out in clauses 8(c) and 10 of the Bill. The definition includes biological characteristics from birth and after the completion of sex re-assignment procedures. What it clearly leaves out is discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.”
“I thank the Minister for contextualising the PIAAC results. I have just one supplementary question for the Minister to consider. Would the Ministry consider collaborating more with Singapore publishers, booksellers and literary charities to enhance English literacy skills all round? Just to provide some background, we have a number of them in Singapore, for example, Book Bar, Ethos Books, Epigram Books, the Singapore Book Council and SingLit Station, just to name a few. These entities have very successfully curated and created many interesting talks and lifestyle events that promote a reading culture around Singapore literature or SingLit, for short. SingLit stories are not only relatable, but very impactful for a local audience who can see their own life experiences and culture mirrored in the books and stories that they read. So, to reiterate my question, will the Ministry be open to leveraging off of the initiatives of these entities in order to create a better reading culture and accordingly, improve adult literacy skills within the community?”
“This is just one example of how social engagement through the arts can be particularly effective in countering loneliness that scammers often seek to exploit when they are targeting their victims. I have another example I would like to talk about from this past weekend. This past weekend, terminally ill artist Jun Yang Pow held an exhibition entitled "Canvas of Memories" at Suntec City celebrating his artistic and personal journey. Crowds gathered to view the show, share their support and engage with the works on display. The event organised by Art Outreach and Ambulance Wish, who worked very hard over Christmas and New Year breaks, brought together practising artists and various members of the public. It really showcased how art can create a strong sense of community and shared purpose. The atmosphere of solidarity and connection at the show was really just as moving as the art itself. Events like this highlight how the arts can do more than just combat isolation. They build networks of care, trust and empathy. By fostering meaningful relationships and creating environments where people look out for one another, art strengthens social bonds. This makes individuals more resilient to scams and manipulation, which often prey on those who are isolated and who lack a supportive community. When people feel connected and cared for, they are less likely to fall victim to exploitation. To put it another way, a community which is rooted in care and connection is one that is so much harder to exploit. I hope that the Government will consider my suggestions for a deeper and more meaningful involvement of the arts community in our broader collective fight against scams. Notwithstanding my suggestions and clarifications, Sir, I support this Bill.”
“In December last year, Singapore art, animation and design educational platform Eyeyah partnered Meta, SPF, the National Crime Prevention Council and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore to come up with a 44-page, a very artistically designed magazine for students which was focused on scam prevention. Eyeyah's resources are completely free for Singapore educators and it uses creative approaches to demystify up to 13 different scam types. The publication includes interactive activities, such as word searches and mazes, and encourages readers to slow down and make observations. These are critical skills in identifying potential scams. I understand that 40,000 hard copies of the magazine will be distributed for free to students through primary and secondary school art clubs. In addition, educators from any institution may request an e-book version to distribute schoolwide. I am so incredibly heartened to see this successful collaboration and the important recognition given by the Government to the power of the arts. I hope that the Ministry can continue to engage more with the arts community in its educational outreach on scam prevention. Mr Speaker, there is also plenty of evidence to show that engagement with the arts, whether as an observer or a creator, helps to mitigate feelings of isolation. They help us to forge new social connections as well as recapture ones that may have been lost. There are plenty of reports and statistics on this and I will highlight just one for today. According to a 2012 report by the Baring Foundation in the UK, entitled "Tackling Loneliness in Older Age – The Role of the Arts", older participants frequently noted that their first significant benefit from arts projects was meeting new people, forming friendships and feeling less isolated.”
“While the Protection from Scams Bill is a blunt tool that curtails the freedoms of scam victims, ROs may also not be extended indefinitely. The very fact that this law is required is testament to the core problem at hand and, that is, why are we in Singapore so susceptible to scams in the first place? It has been reported quite widely that scammers manipulate victims into making poor decisions by using deep-seated psychological tactics. They often use strategies that exploit fundamental human emotions, such as the desire for love and friendship or the instinct to make quick and guaranteed financial gains, whether through jobs or investments. These are all very powerful motivators that can override rational thinking. Many Members in the House had spoken about these factors but I would like to approach the matter from a slightly different perspective and, here, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House that art can really be a very powerful tool In addressing the root causes behind the perpetuation of scams. First, it can be used to raise better awareness about scams; and secondly, it can help people to form communities of trust and care that they can lean on, instead of becoming easy prey for scammers looking to exploit their emotional vulnerabilities. In last year's Motion on Building an Inclusive and Safe Digital Society, I mentioned the example of HSBC in Hong Kong, which organised an art exhibition aimed at promoting public awareness on fraud prevention and online scams.”
“The exercise of this discretion really does need to be guided by very clear regulations to ensure that we do not see errors in judgement being committed or even worse, an abuse of power. My fourth question has to do with the definition of a relative in relation to a scam victim. I note that parents are left out of the definition and could I ask the Minister why this is the case? What would the recourse be if the parent of a scam victim wishes to be involved in the risk mitigation measures outlined in clause 4(1)(b) of the Bill? Can they or can they not be involved in these processes? My fifth question has to do with the amount of time that will be taken for the consideration of an appeal against an RO. The explanatory statement to the Bill acknowledges that there is a need to ensure that appeals are made and determined expeditiously, but is the Minister able to provide an indication on the length of time that the Commissioner will take to review an appeal? My sixth question is on the appeals process laid out in this Bill. At clause 7(4)(b) we see that appeals against decisions related to ROs can be decided without a hearing and in the absence of the scam victims themselves. The absence of a formal hearing denies individuals the opportunity to present their case or to challenge evidence. Victims or affected individuals might also feel disenfranchised by an appeals process that does not allow them to participate actively. In light of these concerns, could the Minister clarify why clause 4(b) is required? Could the Minister also explain or provide examples of the kinds of circumstances that will result in an appeal being decided without a hearing? My final question has to do with what the Government is doing to address the underlying causes of the perpetuation of scams.”