Vikram Nair
Singapore
“I thank the Minister of State for the answer, as well as forming a workgroup to look into this issue. I think it is worrying that platform workers have a much higher rate of workplace injuries than many other groups and I think compensation is one component, but does the Minister of State think any interim measures are needed while the wo…”
“I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I think it is an improvement from the last time this question was asked two years ago, which was 17 minutes and 164 minutes. So, there is improvement. But a one-and-a half-hour waiting time is still quite long.”
“Thank you, and I thank the Minister of State for flagging the answer to me as well. So, I have a supplementary question. The answer was that the Ministry is engaging the digital service providers as well as preparing advisories for parents.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response and to explain that the OCHA Directions are being issued to Telegram as well. The only reason I mentioned Telegram specifically is it seems to emerge in a whole range of crimes, including selling of drugs, etomidate, sexual crimes, scams.”
“It seeks to enable efficient cross-border travel while retaining Singapore's legal framework and ensuring that foreign officers cooperate within defined limits. It also provides for reciprocity, so that Singapore officers can exercise similar functions in Malaysia.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note that amongst the different sources of energy, diesel prices have risen much higher than electricity prices. And diesel fuels many commercial operators, including buses and lorries, which feeds into many other sectors.”
The complete record
Every one of 760 lines we hold for Vikram Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 16.
“Mr Speaker, generally, any sale of an asset should go back into the pool of assets. Land of anything even more than 30 years, is generally considered an asset. Companies, likewise. Companies may not last 99 years, but if you sell shares in a company, that is also treated as an asset. So, the sale of land, the sale of shares that the Government may hold, all of these must go back into the asset pool of the Reserves. And, of course, any income that those assets derived can be spent as part of the NIRC. That to me is the logical way of dealing with it. I mean, this is also in accounting standards – land of more than 30 years would be regarded as an asset, so, there is not a lot of controversy in this, at least from my point of view.”
“I do not think my response will be different from the earlier one because this is not a case where the Government is asking for more spending, saying we need to spend more. So, I do not even think I need to respond.”
“I could give a simple response. Mr Speaker, I think the thrust of my speech is this. The Government and successive Governments have essentially built a nation with prudent spending. They have saved enough and the Government itself, which is the custodian of spending, is not saying it needs more money. So, to me, the real job of the Opposition and the backbench is really to be a check on Government spending because there is usually a perverse incentive for government to spend too much. So, if a government is saying that it can meet its current objectives with the current budget, there is no need to spend more. If the political Opposition is coming forward with different policies that require more spending, then it is for them to bear that onus to explain what the cost the policy is – not the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, I think that is a simple point of principal. You save today, you are putting off today's consumption for tomorrow.”
“Mr Speaker, I think I have explained my disagreement with the policies in my speech. I do not propose to repeat that.”
“I do not have the answer off-hand, but I think it can be calculated based on NIR and other forms of income.”
“Singapore has enjoyed tremendous growth from third world to first, with responsible fiscal spending and saving. I do not think there is any need to change those policies. We can change the exact policies we apply from time to time, but I think fiscal prudence must remain a cornerstone of our spending.”
“There are many people who can afford HDB flats at the current launch price – in fact, far more than there are flats available. So, if you make the price even lower, there will be a much higher demand; and much more people will be unable to get a flat. I think this policy was roundly rejected by the House back then and so I do not plan to go into that, but that is the gist of my disagreements with that second aspect of the PSP policy. Let me just deal with one final point. Mr Pritam Singh made a reference to an IPS study. In that study, he suggested that parties who attended were asking for more openness and he made the point that even the political Opposition was more trusted for input on the Reserves, than journalists and the media. I have managed to have a look at the study and one of the points he did not make in the study was that the entity that ranked the highest – and this was actually very humbling for me when I read it because there is quite a lot of cynicism out there – but the entity that was ranked the highest in the study for trust for input on the Reserves was the PAP Government. This is on a scale of one to 10 – it was given a score of 7.26 on average by participants. Second was scholars, who were given a score of 6.27. Third was family members and close friends with a score of 6.1. Fourth was business leaders with a score of six. Fifth was financial analysts with the score of 5.9. Sixth was fellow citizens with the score of 5.76. And the political Opposition came in after all these, at 5.57. So, in that sense, it is quite humbling to appreciate the trust that people have in the PAP Government. And I would respectfully say that this is because the Reserves have been managed responsibly for a long time.”
“But the main issues we had with this proposal was three-fold. First of all, land is an asset. So, as land gets more valuable that is one of the most important assets for land scarce Singapore. If we are going to use land for one purpose rather than another, it should be properly accounted for now. Both the WP and the PSP suggest that revenue from land sales should be used for the spending we get each year. But what you are selling, in fact, is 99 years' worth of land which is an asset under any definition. If you spend all of it in a single year, you are essentially spending the principal. The more responsible way of dealing with it is the way we are dealing with it right now. Land is an asset even if sold at 99-year leases. Since it is a translation of a physical asset into a cash asset, that cash goes into the Reserves. And the income from that Reserves will be part of the NIR. So, we are actually spending money from the land sales, while treating it in a financially responsible way. We are selling one asset and translating into another; therefore, it is still treated as an asset. I think the two additional arguments that we went through in some detail about the effect of the PSP's housing policy was that, first of all, if you launch new HDB flats at prices that do not include land, they are likely to cause a crash on the existing market, because many other people have much higher HDB values which are significant assets for them. But if much cheaper HDB flats come out that is likely to cause a crash in the secondary market. The second point we had in relation to that proposal was there is already a long queue for HDB flats because the launch price of an HDB flat is below the market price.”
“If people know the depth of your financial reserves, they will know how long you can last. So, keeping some strategic ambiguity is important. On this point, I note the WP has two slightly different positions. I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested there should be full transparency while Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh seemed to side approvingly, that it may be possible to keep a certain part of the Reserves secret while keeping the rest open. I would respectfully suggest that that second proposal is exactly what we have right now. A good part of the Reserves are in the open, such as MAS' assets as well as Temasek's assets. It is only the third port, GIC, which is unknown. And even then, I think some earlier speakers, such as Ms Hazel Poa, tried to make educated guesses on this port. So, people out there in the markets may have a guess on the size of our Reserves, but that little bit of strategic ambiguity is important. The second point the WP made was that we need to know the size of the Reserves in order to make prudent spending decisions. However, the WP does not advocate the use of the principal. I would respectfully submit that if we are not going to use the principal, then the only figures we need are the NIR, which we know. So, we can have a debate on that. They also made the argument that land sales revenue should be included. This is also known. So, in fact, what they need for policy-making purposes, based on what they have advocated, is already there. And I would respectfully say there is enough for open debates on policy. The next point the PSP made was that the revenue from the sale of land should not be charged to HDB. We have had a very, very long debate on this and I do not propose to rehearse that whole debate.”
“These are luxuries we can plan and commit for only if we have prudent financial spending. As far as public services are concerned, we probably have some of the best in the world and yet Singaporeans have among the lowest income taxes and consumption taxes in the world. The secret sauce in this is the combination of prudent spending and prudent use of income from reserves to subsidise expense requirements over the years. One of the issues Singaporeans are coping with, now, is a higher cost of living. Again, we are one of the few governments that has a wide-ranging scheme of distributing vouchers to Singaporeans based on our Government Budgets. For the lowest-income Singaporeans, these vouchers would be significantly more than the increase in cost of living. Even for the middle-income, it would cover substantial parts to the rise in cost of living. These are buffers that we are able to provide to people on a regular basis while remaining prudent in our spending. Against this backdrop, let me address some of the substantive points made by the PSP and the WP. The first point the PSP made is that we should reveal the size of Reserves. Now, I think speakers from the financial industry, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Neil Parekh, have shared why they believed this would not be prudent. And for people experienced in the financial market typically, what they would say is that the time you get attacked is when you are at your weakest, such as for example, the Asian Financial Crisis. Against that backdrop, if people know the cards you have, you are in a weaker position. So, this is why it makes sense to keep that component secret. But there could be more than that. Right now, we are living in a much more unstable world. Wars could take place; economic blockades could take place.”
“Now that we are wealthier, we are focusing not just on treating sick people, but wide-ranging programmes to help keep people healthy and enjoy a good quality of life. This includes providing regular health screenings and a range of programmes under Healthier SG for people to adopt healthier lifestyles. Since 1959, when the PAP first came to power, our life expectancy has grown from 63.87 years to 84.39 years now, one of the longest in the world. In relation to public transport, we have one of the most heavily subsidised public transport systems in the world, with our costs for taking buses and MRTs significantly less than many other developed countries, such as the US, Europe and Japan. For the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) trains, the Government pays for the infrastructure, which is one of the most significant cost components, and operators generally cover operating expenses. For buses, similarly, the Government now bears the cost of assets and tenders out the operating of routes to operators. Notwithstanding, the public transport is losing money. The Government continues to expand the infrastructure, with new MRT lines opening up in more and more places. Each year, as the Budget allows, we continue to build steadily. Finally, in relation to security. With one of the most effective Home Teams and our Armed Forces are strong and respected, despite being small, they are well-trained, well-equipped and have generally kept Singapore one of the safest places in the world. Over and above all this, we are making long-term plans for Singapore's survivability in relation to climate change and, in particular, rising sea levels. This issue is likely to become pressing only in decades to come. But in order to prepare for it, we need to start spending and preparing now.”
“What causes us sleepless nights is how to manage what we have and insecurity about how we can safeguard it for the future. If we look at the big picture, Singaporeans have received generous support from the Government in almost all major aspects of day-to-day life. High-quality public housing is provided to around 80% of the population, more than any other country in the world as far as I am aware. These are launched at prices below the market price to all purchasers who can buy it at the launch. Many purchasers get a host of additional subsidies as well, including first-timers and those living near their parents. These subsidies are also made available for those who buy in the resale market. Another important aspect, education, is almost completely subsidised. The Government schools have generally nominal school fees at the primary and secondary levels. At the tertiary level, all tertiary institutes, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnics and universities receive generous Government funding. There are additional bursaries and scholarships for those who need them. The aim is to be able to support everyone in their education journey, regardless of their background. In relation to healthcare, while we have a principle of co-payment, generally, healthcare at public hospitals is heavily subsidised for Singaporeans. For older generations, special packages, such as the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation packages, are also made available. These are tailored packages, taking into account the needs of each generation and the circumstances they lived in. Thus, the Pioneer Generation, who worked at a time when incomes were much lower and generally have the least CPF, have the most generous package.”
“The upshot of this is that most government budgets have to provide for debt service and interest payments as the regular part of expenditure, as they continue to carry the burden of past generations while trying to spend for the current generation. Singapore has a very different starting point today. Thanks to prudent spending and management of Reserves over decades, we have built up significant Reserves. Part of the NII from these Reserves now fund our annual Budget every year. The amount this is provided has grown significantly over the years, such that it is now the largest component of our annual Budget. This means Singaporeans have the benefit of receiving more than they pay in taxes every year in Government spending, similar to other countries but without the burden of that falling on the next generation. For this benefit to continue for future generations, we must ensure that the Reserves are preserved, prudently invested and that some of the returns also go back to the Reserve to take into account the effects of inflation and if possible, allow for modest real growth as well; meaning, growth adjusted for inflation. This is why the amendments of the Motion are important. Fiscally responsible and sustainable spending is an important component of this healthy financial situation Singapore is in, and from which Singaporeans can benefit on a sustainable basis. Our Reserves are like the goose that lays the golden egg. We can get golden eggs at regular intervals as long as we do not kill the goose. There is an old saying in Tamil, "பணம் இருப்பவனை தூங்கவிடாது. இல்லாதவனை வாழவிடாது." That translates to: "The person with money will not be able to sleep. The person without money will not be able to live." In Singapore, we are in the privileged position of having money.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion. There are two main points the original Motion made that are preserved in the amended Motion. These are: the Budget should help reduce the financial burdens of Singaporeans and improve their quality of life; the second is the Reserve accumulation policy should be adequate for future generations of Singaporeans. Both of these are good objectives. However, there is a tension between these objectives. The more we spend today, the less we will save for future generations. How do we meet both of these objectives? I believe the amendments proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa help to set out a principled way to strike this balance, which is to ensure that we always stay fiscally responsible and sustainable. In addition, the amendment of "continuing to save" is sensibly changed to "planning and providing for", because the stewardship of our Reserves is not passive saving but planned management to provide for the future. Let me start with the importance of building reserves. The easiest thing to do is to spend today and forget about tomorrow. There is a famous Frank Sinatra song, "Forget Domani". It sounds like "Forget the money", but actually "domani" is Italian for "tomorrow". The chorus of the song is "Let's forget about tomorrow, for tomorrow never comes". It is a fun song, which I enjoy listening to. But I would not rely on it to plan finances. For most countries, the need for governments to spend on ever-increasing budgets has resulted in structural deficits. These structural differences are usually financed by borrowings, such as the issue of government bonds. Over time, the amounts owed in debt continue to increase, with governments often refinancing debt when it becomes due by issuing fresh bonds.”
“I understand that employees come forward with a wide range of issues, from dealing with family breakdowns to coping with the fear of retrenchment exercises when companies go through such exercises. Both scenarios are generally traumatic for people and they also bring with them financial insecurity for the employees, which may make them reluctant to seek assistance privately. In these scenarios, having an employment benefit that gives them access to professional mental health assistance, in this case, trained psychologists or counsellors, can make a huge difference. Where it is provided by employers, there is no additional financial burden to the State; while if the employer is large, the cost of the service can be aggregated. I understand that the provision of such programmes amongst local employers, particularly in the small and medium enterprises (SME) sector, which make up most of our local employers, is very low. So, I would suggest that the Government consider the best practices in mental health programmes provided by employers in other countries and whether such programmes can be made more widely available in Singapore, say, either through legislation or through the tripartite framework. For example, if small employers may not be individually able to provide such a programme, it may be possible for the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) to provide, an umbrella programme that SMEs can sign up for and for which they can contribute to. I think, ultimately, an important aspect of mental health care is making access to professional mental health more affordable and accessible, and both the Government and employers can play an important part in this.”
“However, dealing with people with suicidal tendencies is a complex matter and where, for example, there may be underlying conditions, such as depression, there may be a need for professional intervention from psychologists or psychiatrists. In a supplementary question I had asked at that time, I suggested that the Government consider subsidising or providing such professional services under the ambit of MediSave or MediFund, so that financial barriers to getting such assistance will also be reduced. This will be particularly important for, say, students or the elderly who may wish to seek assistance but may be concerned about whether they have the means to do so. A related aspect of this is to encourage insurance policies to cover or provide for mental health assistance as a rider. While the largest increase in suicides was amongst the elderly and young, the largest number is still amongst the working adult population. In this regard, in workplaces, it may also be useful to have such access to mental health assistance for employees as a benefit. In many European countries and the United States (US), for example, companies have an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) where employees can seek assistance for mental health issues on a confidential basis. As this is provided by employers, the costs of doing this can generally be aggregated over a large pool of employees. I should declare that my mother is a psychologist who currently provides EAP services to several companies and this was where I actually learnt about this service from. Her end-customers are generally multinational companies who offer EAP as an employee benefit. The consultations with the psychologists are confidential, so the employees do not have to worry about stigma in seeking assistance.”
“The Ministry highlighted several initiatives it had to address this, including Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) MindSG portal, movements by HPB and the National Council of Social Services (NCSS), to encourage people to seek help, components in school curriculum to encourage children to get help and HPB's campaigns for parents to train them to identify signs of mental health issues in their children; and then, once people come forward, there are well-being centres in the community to help people, as well as mental health hotlines. Based on the response provided by the Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary at that time, it did seem like this was a matter that the Ministry was taking seriously. I do have some further clarifications and suggestions in this regard. In relation to the clarifications, it will be helpful if the Government is able to share how it tracks the effectiveness of its outreach programmes. For example, do the HPB's programmes targeted at parents reach all parents? Do the HPB and NCSS' campaigns, targeted at encouraging people to get help, reach their intended audience? One way to gauge this would be if we can identify whether, of the people who ultimately committed suicide, there was a way to track whether any of these programmes had reached them? The second is to track the effectiveness of the interventions once people come forward to ask for help. For this, an important statistic would be tracking how many of those who had committed suicide had come forward to seek assistance and were, therefore, "known" cases. I understand that the main intervention for those seeking assistance now is administered by social service agencies at the community level.”
“Mr Speaker, one of the grim figures that made me sit up last year was an article in July indicating that the suicide rate in Singapore for 2022 had risen to 476, the highest in 20 years and a more than 25% increase from the year before. It also indicated that the rise in suicide rates was the highest amongst the elderly and the young. This was a perturbing figure and I have come across more than one case of residents affected by suicide. The cases of two teenagers were particularly sad. In one case, I spoke to the parents who were utterly devastated, saying they could not understand how their daughter who appeared to be a well-behaved and obedient child, suddenly decided to take her own life. In another case, I heard from a young resident whose best friend decided to take her own life. The friend was utterly devasted by this and had to deal with depression herself. There are two related questions that arise. The first is, whether these people had undetected mental health issues, including depression and/or the inability to deal with some difficult or stressful situation the person was facing. A United Nations (UN) study indicated that about 90% of the people who committed suicide had some underlying mental health concerns. The second is whether, even if such issues were detected, the interventions to deal with them were adequate. In response to the Parliamentary Questions that several other Members of Parliament and I filed on the topic, the Ministry of Health (MOH) indicated that the best interventions were to build mental resilience, spot early indicators, encourage help seeking and support those in crisis.”
“By placing potential lability on private sector players, they have been financially incentivised to get together to work to stop APP scams. The jury is now whether this will work or whether it may increase moral hazard and increase the incidence of frauds, but we should keep a watch on it. It should be noted that despite the seemingly radical approach, the UK's aim is to reduce fraud by 10%. Even they are not ambitious or claiming that it can be completely eradicated but they just want to reduce the incidence. So, this is something that is going to be with us, but with which we all have to take the necessary precautions. In Singapore, it may be necessary for the Government to take the lead in these initiatives and/or in the passed legislation, to put adequate risk for industry players. MAS' risk-sharing framework is a start and it is one thing that can be reviewed and modified, if needed, to balance the allocation of risks amongst the different players. I believe that financially aligned industry collaboration is, in general, a sensible approach. Mr Speaker, digitisation is important to all our lives and generally, it has made our lives better and easier. We have to embrace and ride this wave. I do not think avoiding digitisation is an option. However, in riding this wave, we need to bring in everyone we can, that is, inclusion and be aware of the new dangers that this poses, that is, security. I therefore support this Motion.”
“Of course, the most important approach is the third aspect, which is public education. I think SPF, Cyber Security Agency, MoneySENSE and banks have used multiple platforms, reach out to residents and many of us, Members of Parliament, have also been conducting talks and dialogues in our constituencies to encourage people to download ScamShield and to warn them about the risks of scams. Singapore is also involved and plugged into global cooperation to fight scams. We have to play our part if we want others to assist us. There was a recent crackdown in Singapore where large numbers of people were arrested and I believe a large part of this money is from crimes committed abroad. Of course, the full details of this are large scale arrests and seizure methods have not been released, but I think it is part of our cooperation with international work. This is a matter that affects all countries and other countries like the UK, Australia and the United States and also similarly taking these approaches to fight scams. One initiative that caught my attention was actually "Stop Scams UK", which is an industry led collaboration of businesses, including major banks, credit card operators and big online players, such as Amazon and Google. In the UK, just like in Singapore, fraud is the most commonly experienced crime. In the UK, one is twice as likely to be the victim of a fraud than any other crime. What is interesting here is this is a private-sector-led initiative. This may have been partly motivated by UK's legal measures to require banks to reimburse victims of authorised push payment or APP scams. This is where a payee poses as someone else and defrauds victims to make payment.”
“Second, this may mean that more invasive approaches by service providers to their customers. For example, if telcos are held liable for scams through phone calls or WhatsApp messages, they probably going to have to take more efforts to monitor and scan private calls and messages in order to ferret out scams. To what extent do we want banks to second guess instructions and transactions? The third point, that of moral hazard, has been recognised. If people believe that losses may fail elsewhere, they are more likely to take less precaution. Balancing these considerations, Singapore has taken a three-pronged approach to fight scams. Firstly, they adopt upstream measures, including things like ScamShield, which filters and blocks scammed messages, an SMS sender identity registry regime to label non-registered scanners who are likely scammer. I think many of us already have this adopted. Second, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) adopts downstream measures, including trying to chase down scams syndicates. I think there was a report in The Straits Times that at least one scam had been successfully cracked with this, adverting over $12.6 million in losses – a drop in the ocean but a step in the right direction. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) have also begun working with banks to tackle this issue. One example of this the work with OCBC Bank in March 2023 to use robotic processes automation to allow them to identify potential scammers. MAS has also been involved in this approach to combat scams, working closely with banks to strengthen anti-malware controls, faults surveillance and detection capabilities. Major retail banks have enhanced their security measures. So, certainly, bigger organisations and the Government are taking steps to fight scams.”
“It is still difficult for her to believe she has been scammed. She still wants to believe there is an inheritance waiting for her. Scammers are essentially criminals who are trying to steal. Digitisation has simply created an easier way for them to do so. I do not think there is a crisis of confidence in digitisation, but rather this is a matter on which each consumer must learn to be more careful and vigilant. Just as in the real world, we take precautions, such as not leaving our wallets and phones lying around, or leaving our houses unlocked when we are out, we must exercise the same care digitally. The third challenge is where the losses for these scams should fall. Generally, we are all sympathetic to the victim, who have been taken advantage of. Some have lost life savings or monies they needed for important purposes. Some of the victims I have met at the Meet-the-People Sessions have had heart wrenching stories. There are calls for more of these losses to fall on telco operators and/or banks, or generally, any other big companies that may be involved in this process. There are several attractions to this approach. We all believe that big companies should be better able to bear losses than individuals. We also want to put more pressure on big companies to take the necessary precautions to protect individuals. I would, however, like to highlight some risks I see if we swing too far in this direction. First, every large company, including banks and telcos, have to make money from their customers and if taking a large proportion of losses from online scams falls on them, they will have to recoup these losses from one of their customers. So, we may see prices rising across the board.”
“Many companies and organisations have extensive personal information from individuals and if the systems on which these are stored are not secured, individuals could be exposed to attacks. On these matters, I think it is necessary to ensure that those who collect personal data are able to protect it. The third aspect which I think has received the most attention from many speakers in this House is online scams. I have spoken on this issue several times in this House. The challenge with scams is multi-faceted. First, the perpetrators are mostly located out of Singapore. This makes it difficult for local law enforcement agencies to take action against them. The Singapore Police is closely plugged in with Interpol and counterparts in other agencies, but it is sometimes difficult to trace exactly where each of the numerous scams originate from. Second, victims normally have their trust taken advantage of. The types of scams include job scams, love scams and investment scams. Some in this House have spoken about how the prevalence of scams is creating a crisis of confidence in our digitisation process. I beg to differ on this. I think digitisation is a fast moving train and most Singaporeans are on board. The victims of scams are often too trusting and take at face value the calls and messages they get, which hook them into the process. In the course of my work, I was approached by a victim of a love scam. She had fallen in love with an individual through online exchanges and one meeting in-person. Eventually, this individual allegedly died, leaving her a massive inheritance. However, to get this inheritance, she had to and did make regular payments for various purportedly official purposes. By the time she approached me, she had spent more than $1 million dollars.”
“Seniors Go Digital, likewise, is targeted at seniors with courses available at locations throughout the heartlands and trains them in the range of functions and services they are able to access through their phones. I believe these initiatives are working, but in order for them to work better, I think it will take the whole of society to be involved, for us to encourage people around us to go for courses, go online and become more enabled. Whenever I get requests by residents for more ATMs, I explain the challenges we face in getting more ATMs, but also gently nudge them to getting online banking apps and to move digital. The next aspect of the Motion which has received a lot of attention is digital security. This has several facets. One aspect is security of the systems. This includes keeping systems operating and protecting from cyber threats. There have been several instances, for example, of some of our banking systems going down, preventing transactions taking place. Where people operate largely digitally, this can create issues. For example, if a bank's payment systems are down, what happens to people who only have digital means of payment from that bank? I suffered a minor inconvenience in this because I was at a shop the first time the system went down. I had to return the items and went back home. Not a major issue but definitely something that needs to be looked at if we are going more digital. But more important are malicious cyber threats, including hacking and ransomware, where organisations may have systems hacked, information stolen and then demands are made for payment.”
“This Motion highlights two important issues that need to be addressed in this move to digitisation: inclusion and safety. Let me start with inclusion. For those of us who are online and get our services online, life has never been easier. For young people too, getting online seems to be second nature. My daughter had learnt to download games on my wife's mobile phone from around the age of four or five, and shortly after that, she had learnt to make online purchases. All this, without any of us teaching her. On the other hand, I do have many older residents who are not fully online and struggle. I used to get requests for more bank branches to remain open when banks started closing branches and transitioning people to ATMs and AXS machines. Now, banks are also pulling back on ATMs and residents who have spent a lifetime transacting with cash are now finding it more difficult to do so. The same applies to many small business owners, and while many shops in wet markets and HDB malls have gone digital, there are still a few who have not signed on to online payments or record keeping. This includes some very educated people, including, in some cases, senior doctors who prefer to practice the way they have done for many years. There have been wide ranging initiatives by different Government agencies to bridge this divide and bring more people into the digital fold. For example, Hawkers go Digital, an initiative by the IMDA to subsidise hawkers to move their business online and accept digital platforms, was rolled out, bringing many heartland hawkers into the digital world.”
“Mr Speaker, Singapore's move to a digitised society has been remarkable. Over the last few years, the Government and key players in society have kept up with and utilised technology to make our lives better and simpler. Once upon a time, each of us had to keep physical copies of all our important documents, including birth certificates, identity cards, driver's licences, health records, marriage certificates, bank account statements and CPF statements. Now, all this information is readily available on or through apps on our mobile phones. The Singpass app readily links us to most of our official records, while all major banks provide most of their services through mobile phone apps. For many of us, there is probably no need to carry cash or wallets anymore, or to queue up at post offices, banks, ATM or AXS machines, as almost all payments can be done on our phones, from wherever we are. Even the marketing and shopping experience has changed completely, with online stores now bringing this experience to our fingertips. We can now shop from the comfort of home or while on public transport. Indeed, when I spoke to an executive in an online retailer, she mentioned that very significant percentage of shoppers made purchases while they were in the toilet in the morning. These changes have also changed our business landscape significantly, with online giants such as Amazon and Alibaba replacing physical retailers such as Borders and Robinsons. For small businesses, getting goods displayed on platforms like Shopee and Lazada allows them to sell without retail shopfronts, while for those who have retail shopfronts, getting online has been an important way to supplement sales.”
“Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Are spot checks carried out on the diplomatic bags now and then just to make sure that it is not used for personal items?”
“The different faiths stand in solidarity together even when there are differences amongst people in other countries that could otherwise divide us. I am grateful to this House and all its Members for standing in solidarity for peace and security in the Middle East. I beg to move, Sir. 7.04 pm”
“I am grateful for Dr Maliki sharing of the Government's effort to fight misinformation, including with programmes in schools and I think one of the most heartening examples highlighted in this House by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr Keith Chua, Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Nadia Samdin, amongst others, was position taken by two important leaders, the Chief Rabbi and the Mufti. After the attack, the Mufti Ustaz Dr Nazirudin Mohd Nasir in his letter, "There is no place and no justification for any form of violence and brutality on civilians by anyone, including by Hamas, or in any retaliatory response." He also offered his sincerest condolences, prayers and solidarity to those whose lives are unjustly taken. He also expressed his wish for peaceful co-existence of both communities. In response, the Chief Rabbi Mordechai Abergel said he was encouraged by the Mufti's letter and said he was grateful for Singapore's zero tolerance laws on hate speech and added that the utmost priority is for our communities to come together. This crucial exchange sends a strong message and I hope members of both faiths and all other faiths in Singapore will take this message of solidarity and unity. But these actions are not just from the leaders, they seem to go quite a way down. I think many of our Malay/Muslim Members of Parliament shared the efforts of the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation raising funds in Singapore, the grassroot levels but they were joined by other faiths as well as Mr Keith Chua highlighted contributions from Humanity Matters – churches, Buddhist temples, Sikh temples, Hindu temples, all coming together in support. This, I think, is a good example of the Singapore way.”
“It was also interesting to note that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan was in contact with his Egyptian counterpart, and this is to facilitate the movement of aid to the Gaza. Dr Maliki is going to Cairo himself. These are big commitments on the part of a small country to have such high-level people involved in doing what little we can to facilitate the peace process. Singapore has no power over either of the parties. All we can hope to do is lend our voice. Let me come to the last component of this and that is to urge all Singaporeans to safeguard and uphold our multiracial and multi-religious peace and harmony. Both Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faisal Ibrahim highlighted the complaints about hate crimes have been on the rise in Singapore, although the numbers are still small while Mr Raj Joshua Thomas highlighted a rise in hate crimes across the world and indicated that Singapore may also be vulnerable. This means there is a real threat to Singapore's harmony that could arise from this, if we are not careful. Minister of State Fasial also highlighted that there are calls by Hamas for regional recruitment. Several speakers, including Mr Alex Yam, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gerald Giam have highlighted that online misinformation targeting Singaporeans has been on the rise and Dr Wan Rizal has introduced me to a new term, "doom-scrolling", the continued consumption of negative news. So, I think, against this backdrop, it is important that all parties in this House acknowledged the need for Singapore to stay united. Each of us, as leaders, must do our part to fight this misinformation. While some Singaporeans have strong sentiment on the matter, we should not get these feelings divide us.”
“I think in my speech, I highlighted that it traces back to 1967, and I think Minister Vivian Balakrishnan also highlighted Singapore's record of votes at the UN to show how we have always been consistent with this. We have voted to indicate also that Israel's policies of starting settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal and we maintain this position. We acknowledge that this policy of settlement is an obstacle to the peace process and the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. To Israel's credit though, they did take action to move out of the Gaza, including moving settlers out in 2005. So, in my view, this is not an insurmountable obstacle, but I think it is one that should be acknowledged. I think Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong set out that if we are to get a peaceful resolution, Palestinians must be given a peaceful alternative to achieve statehood. Otherwise, they may continue to support groups like Hamas that promote violence. So, for the two-state solution to become a reality, I think we have to hope that both parties and the peaceful leaders on both sides will be able to have a stronger position. Singapore is not a big player in this situation and Singapore probably cannot individually move the needle on this, but I think many speakers have pointed out that Singapore has a good relationship with both Israel and Palestine. And we have taken a consistent position with both. With the Palestinians, several speakers including Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Dr Maliki and Mr Sharael Taha have highlighted the efforts that we have taken to engage in capacity building with the Palestinian Authority, and to continue to help them build up their skills.”
“This also has to be condemned, regardless of which party is responsible, and the relevant principles of international law include the principles applicable to arm conflict including the principle of distinction, which means civilians and civilian objects cannot be made targets of military attack; proportionality, which means any response has to be proportionate to the threat; as well as positive obligations to protect civilians and civilian objects from the effects of war. These are all important obligations. I also agree with Mr Zhulkarnain's call for both parties to facilitate investigations after the war, if necessary. It is important for both parties who wish to maintain the moral high ground to show that they intend to and respect international law. The next limb, which calls for all parties to comply with positive obligation under humanitarian law, including to ensure the safety and security of civilians, release all hostages and minimise the effects of combat on the civilian population. There is some overlap between this and the earlier limbs, but I think the call for release of hostages is also universal. There is no excuse for keeping hostages and they have to be released immediately. The steps taken to protect the civilian population from the effects of war, I would respectfully say, include compliance with the UN resolution and facilitating humanitarian access to the agencies involved. We then come to another point in which there was universal agreement and that is Singapore's long-standing commitment to a two-state solution. This commitment goes back a long way.”
“There was a UN resolution passed for immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce and a call for cessation, leading to the cessation of hostilities. This was, I quote, by all Members in this House and all parties, and I think this is important. Even Israel's close ally, like the US, is calling for a truce so that humanitarian supplies can reach the people. And this builds onto the third component and some people, including Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Mr Alex Yam, Dr Syed Harun and Mr Sharael Taha, share moving stories about the humanitarian plight and of the suffering of the civilian population. We think it is important for the people to get access to humanitarian assistance being provided by the UN, the International Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations. The fourth component – condemning those responsible for the terrorist attacks and violation of international law. This is an important point for Singapore. And the Deputy Prime Minister, Ministers, Second Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Sharael Taha, have all pointed out that we have to unequivocally call out these terrorist attacks and label it as such because such attacks cannot be condoned. And I think Mr Xie Yao Quan also highlighted that the right of self defence that correlates and arises from this is also important to recognise. The second component – the violations of international law.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues who took part in this debate including our Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of State for Home Affairs who set out the Government's perspective. It was also good to have perspectives from the backbench, from our Nominated Members and from both Opposition parties. I am heartened by the significant agreement on important matters by all parties concerned. So, the good news is I will not be using anywhere close to my full 40 minutes. WP has in this House clarified that their position is similar to the Government's on all the key points, including that they condemn the terrorist attacks on 7 October and recognise Israel's right of self defence. This is important because it was not clear from their public statement, but I am grateful that the opposition has clarified that the public statement may also be modified. I also thank Mr Leong Mun Wai and the PSP for its unequivocal support of our Motion and the Government's position on this matter. There is so much common ground among the speakers here that I think what I will do in this speech, in line with this Motion, is show the solidarity amongst us. On the first component, I think everyone who spoke understands and empathises both with the suffering of the Israeli people who are victims of the attack as well as with the plight of the Palestinian people. I think many speakers also express sympathy for the Palestinian cause, which may have been compromised, unfortunately, by this attack. The second and third components of this debate are where we give substance to the humanitarian crisis.”
“I just wish to pick up on one point that the Leader of the Opposition made. I think his explanation for not calling out the acts of terrorism in the initial statement was that Hamas was not a listed organisation under the Terrorism Suppression of Financing Act. I had a look at the Act. There was a Schedule of the Act and Hamas is not in that Schedule, but "terrorist entity" means any entity owned or controlled by any terrorist group or group of terrorists and includes an association of such entities set out in the First Schedule. The First Schedule is not exclusive. So, if Hamas is not on the list, it does not mean that it is not a terrorist entity. The second and more relevant point is that that Act sets out the definition of a terrorist act. And a terrorist act is clearly defined as one that involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage of property, or endangers a person's life. There are other limbs but these three are the most material. If that is satisfied, in addition to that, where the threat or use of violence is reasonably regarded or intending to influence or compel government or any other government or any international organisations to do or refrain from doing any act or intimidate the public or public servant or the public, then it is an act of terrorism. So, to me, all the components are satisfied. There is direct violence, there is intention to compel government – the definition of terrorist act is plainly satisfied.”
“I received many emails from residents, quite a number expressing sympathy for Hamas. Others I have spoken with said we should speak up more strongly for Israel's right of self-defence and should not be going soft on terrorist attacks. In Singapore, our racial and religious harmony is one that we have worked hard over the years to develop. People of different faiths live together, work together and even take steps to understand each other. It is not uncommon for people to visit places of worship even if they do not personally worship there. I myself have been to churches, mosques and temples, Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist, and I have always enjoyed learning about different religions. In order to maintain this peace, we need to find common ground and tolerance. We need to look for things that bring us together rather than differences that divide us. I think many of us share an understanding that both the Palestinians and Jewish people have a right to peaceful existence and a nation of their own. Let us come together, in solidarity, to support the cause for peace and security in the Middle East. I hope for your support for this Motion. [Applause.]”
“The presidential elections had been won the year earlier, in 2005, by Mahmoud Abbas from the Fatah party. Shortly after this, in 2007, after the failure of a national unity government involving Fatah and Hamas, fighting broke out between the two. In the course of this fighting, Hamas seized control of the Gaza with its militia. The Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas retained control of the West Bank. Since then, the legal status of the Gaza has been grey. It is part of the Palestinian territory but under the de facto rule of Hamas. There have been no presidential or parliamentary elections in Palestine since then, so neither Hamas nor Fatah can point to any recent mandate. The journey to Palestinian statehood is a complex one and in order to get there, it will be necessary both for Israel to play its part in withdrawing its military forces and settlements, as well as for the Palestinian peoples to show that they are capable of governing themselves and will not be a security threat to their neighbours. Unfortunately, this latest attack by Hamas on Israel adds to the legitimacy of Israel's security concerns and may set back the journey to Palestinian statehood even further. Notwithstanding this, it is my hope that both parties realise that the only long-term solution is one where there is a framework for both to co-exist securely. Both should refocus on achieving the two-state solution, where the two people can live together securely. I now come to the final limb of the Motion – urging all Singaporeans to safeguard and uphold our multiracial and multi-religious peace and harmony. Singapore is a small country, far away from the conflict. Yet, when this conflict emerged, many in Singapore felt moved by it.”
“An agreement was reached for the setting up of an interim Palestinian government for five years, during which unresolved issues would be addressed. These accords also provided a framework for the withdrawal in phases of the Israeli armed forces from Palestinian territory, with Israel retaining responsibility for protecting the territories from air and sea attack but with the Palestinian authorities setting up a stronger police force to take over the responsibilities for internal security. While this was a landmark move towards Palestinian statehood and peace in the Middle East, the leaders involved both faced criticisms from their own populations or, at least, from parts of them. Prime Minister Yithzak Rabin himself was tragically assassinated in November 1995 by Yigal Amir, a far-right extremist in Israel. In 1996, elections were held in Palestine, with Yaasar Arafat emerging as President. His party, Fatah, won 55 of the 88 seats in parliament too. In 1999, the interim Palestinian Authority became permanent. Israel, for its part, began its disengagement from the Gaza, with its settlers and military presence withdrawn by 2005. Israel takes the position that it is no longer occupying the Gaza, although the UN and other agencies still views Israel as an occupying force because it maintains control over the Gaza's air and maritime space as well as several land borders. Notwithstanding this, the withdrawal of settlements and the military from the Gaza was a positive step for Palestinian statehood. Unfortunately, the situation deteriorated following the 2006 parliamentary elections in Palestine, where Hamas won the majority of seats in the parliament, with most of their support coming from the Gaza.”
“These are all territories which were part for the former Mandatory Palestine. In 1973, there was yet another attack on Israel, the Yom Kippur War, from which Israel again emerged victorious. Although Israel's right to self-defence is universally acknowledged, its prolonged occupation of these territories was criticised, even by its own allies. The most controversial aspect was the starting of Israeli settlements on the occupied territories. These settlements would make any subsequent disengagement of Israel from these lands more difficult. While relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours appeared moribund, signs of thawing emerged in the late 1970s, which culminated in the Camp David Summit brokered by US President Jimmy Carter in 1978. Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadar met. Here, a framework for peace in the Middle East was agreed upon, with a process for Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza and a framework for conclusion of a peace treaty between Israel, Egypt and other Arab nations. This paved the way for the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, in which Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and Egypt opened the Suez Canal to Israeli ships. Unfortunately, at this time, many other Arab nations rejected this, as did the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The next big step to Palestinian statehood came with the Oslo accords, which were signed in 1993 and 1995, this time involving Israeli Prime Minister Yithzak Rabin and PLO Leader Yaasar Arafat in a process facilitated by Norway. Both men won the Nobel Peace prize, along with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, for their efforts on Middle East peace.”
“During the period of British rule, there were successive waves of Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine. As the Jewish population grew and the demands for Jewish statehood got stronger, the local Palestinian population also started asserting themselves and there were various clashes between the Jewish and Palestinian communities during this period, with both demanding independent statehood. The UN first proposed a partition plan to divide the territory into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, in November 1947, with the British ready to relinquish control. Unfortunately, this agreement did not prevent conflict and civil war broke out shortly thereafter between the Jewish and Arab peoples in Palestine. The British terminated their mandate on 14 May 1948 and Israel declared independence on the same day. The next day, on 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighbouring Arab states invaded the area of Mandatory Palestine, starting the first Arab-Israeli war. At the end of the war in 1949, which resulted in an armistice amongst the warring parties, Israel had more territory than the original UN partition plan while no independent state of Palestine emerged. Instead, the remaining territory in the former Mandatory Palestine was held by Egypt and Jordan. There followed large waves of immigration thereafter, both of Palestinian people out of Israeli territory as well as of Jewish people out of Arab territories and into the newly formed nation of Israel. In 1967, Israel was once again attacked by its Arab neighbours and the resulting six-day war resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands of West Bank and the Gaza Strip, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights.”
“Many of us, myself included, are sympathetic to the cause of Palestinian statehood, but we respectfully say this is the wrong way to win the moral support for it. My colleague, Mr Alex Yam, will be proposing some amendments to this limb of the Motion to expressly reiterate that parties must comply with the positive obligations under international law, including to minimise the effects of war on the civilian population. The next limb, Sir, reiterates Singapore's long-standing commitment to a negotiated two-state solution consistent with the relevant United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions. This has been Singapore's position since 1967. While the history of this land, now shared by the Palestinian and Jewish peoples, goes back thousands of years, I will focus on the more recent events that have brought these two peoples together. At the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire, which fought alongside Germany, was to be dismantled. Palestine, which was under the rule of the Ottomans at this time, was transferred to the British, who administered it with a special mandate from the League of Nations. The area was therefore known as Mandatory Palestine from 1920 to the end of British rule in 1948. The Zionist cause, or movement for the creation of a Jewish nation, was also growing in Europe around this time. In 1917, the British has signed the Balfour declaration that promised its support for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. The Jewish people had been displaced from their homeland and had been dispersed in many parts of the world, including Europe, other parts of the Middle East and the US for centuries. The Zionist movement grew from a longing by the Jewish community to return to their homeland and have a nation of their own.”
“Peter Beaumont from The Guardian, which is a newspaper that is generally sympathetic to the cause of Palestinian statehood, has said in an article on 30 October 2023, "Hamas' attitude towards civilians during the conflict in Gaza often appears to be cynical at best. After five conflicts with Israel since 2008, Hamas is well aware of the high potential for civilian deaths in fighting with Israeli forces – and has instrumentalised those fatalities in its messaging to the world." That is a damning statement from a newspaper that is otherwise supportive of the Palestinian cause. I certainly hope that Hamas would take steps to prove these allegations are incorrect. In order to do so, it must make sure it does not locate its military targets amongst the civilian population and does not take steps to prevent civilians leaving conflict areas if they wish to do so. Next, Hamas continues to hold more than 200 civilians hostage from its invasion of Israel on 7 October. The taking of hostages is a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. These are mainly civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict. Hamas is demanding the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons in exchange for these civilians. These prisoners have been convicted of a range of crimes, including terrorism. Sir, this is unlawful hostage taking at its worst – to capture and use civilians for collateral purposes. The observance of international law is particularly important for the weak and the vulnerable. If Hamas and its combatants wish to hold the moral high ground in their fight for a Palestinian state, they must show that they respect international law.”
“One view is that this is Israel's attempt to comply with international law by asking civilians to leave the areas they intend to strike and because Hamas' military objectives are interspersed in the civilian population, this is a necessary step. Another view is that this is creating a wholesale and unnecessary displacement of the civilian population and could therefore be a breach of international law. Sir, based on the publicly available news, I am unable to take a definitive stance on whether the IDF has breached international law in the conduct of war, but I would strongly urge all participants in the combat to comply with international humanitarian law, both in spirit and letter. We should roundly condemn all breaches of international law by any participant. No matter how emotionally upset we are, we should not abandon the rule of law. These laws are designed to curb our most savage instincts in the heat of battle. This brings me to the next limb, which calls for all parties to ensure safety and security of civilians and to release all hostages. The points I had made in the earlier limbs apply here. Steps should be taken to facilitate humanitarian aid reaching the civilian population and both parties should take into account international humanitarian law when conducting the conflict. This requires both actors to take steps to protect civilians from the effect of war. On the one hand, there are allegations that the IDF has been conducting its war with disregard to the civilian population and the mounting death toll in Palestine is cited as evidence of this. On the other hand, Israel contends that Hamas is using the human population as a shield, including by placing part of its military tunnel system and command network under civilian objects.”
“While there is some debate in international legal circles about whether or not the law of armed conflict applies to Hamas' attacks since Hamas is not a state actor and Israel may be considered an occupying force in Gaza, I think the better view is that a state is entitled to take action against a non-state actor where that non-state actor poses a threat to the country or its people and there is no state that is able to contain or take action against that non-state actor. This was the legal basis for the US-led attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks, and I think as a small country, it is important for us to recognise this principle. Having said that, I would also state that the IDF is obliged to comply with international humanitarian law, which is also sometimes referred to as the law of war or the law of armed conflict, when responding. There are several important principles applicable here. First, while it is legitimate for the IDF to target Hamas' military assets and weapons, it is not legitimate to target civilians or object the civilian population needs for its daily survival. Related to this, Hamas should also not be using civilians and civilian objects as human shields or co-locating military assets within them. Second, any attack must be proportional to the threat faced and the method used to respond should cause as little collateral damage as possible. Thus, where a precision strike is possible, that would spare civilian life and is able to achieve the military objective, that should be used over an option that would cause a large amount of collateral damage. Third, steps must be taken to minimise the impact of war on the civilian population. On this limb, there are conflicting views on Israel's direction to civilians to leave the war zone.”
“This is a recognition that Israel has a positive duty to permit humanitarian access. As these are important developments, I had wanted to amend the Motion to include a specific limb for this house to support the UN resolution ES 10-21 as well as to amend limb (b) to clarify that unhindered access should be given to UN agencies, the International Red Cross and other international organisations to provide humanitarian support. However, procedurally, I am not able to amend my own Motion if it changes the scope of the debate, so my colleague, Mr Alex Yam, will propose specific amendments to address both these points in his speech. Next, limb (c) condemns those responsible for terrorist acts and also violations of international law. The ostensible reason for the attack by Hamas against Israel had to do with unhappiness with the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank as well as the clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Unsuspecting civilians in Israel were therefore targeted to send a political message by Hamas. Any attack that targets civilians to send a political message is a terrorist attack, and we should condemn such attacks in no uncertain terms. Related to this, I have received feedback asking why the attacks by Hamas are considered terrorist attacks while the response by the IDF, which has resulted in civilian casualties, has not been called one. People are especially concerned about the IDF's response because of the mounting civilian deaths and casualties in Palestine. Sir, I would say that the IDF is entitled to act in self-defence and to take the necessary steps to eliminate the threats to Israel.”
“I would like to express my deepest condolences to all the innocent victims and civilian casualties both of the initial terrorist attacks by Hamas as well as the subsequent ground operations by the IDF as set out in limb (a) of the proposed Motion. I now move to limb (b). The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire and, since this Motion was filed, has gotten worse. The civilian population has had to deal with shortages of drinking water, power, food and medicines. The Isreali blockade is ostensibly to prevent these being used for military purposes. However, this position has been doubted even by leading Jewish lawyers, including former UK Supreme Court President, Lord Neuberger, who reiterated in an open letter that international law requires minimum destruction to civilian life and infrastructure. The United Nations, the International Red Cross and other international organisations wish to provide aid and support to the people in Gaza, but have been facing difficulties doing so because of the blockade, as Israeli forces have cited concerns that these supplies may go into the hands of Hamas and be used for military purposes. This is why limb (b) advocates for the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to the civilian population in Gaza. Since this Motion was filed, events have moved on. The UN has since passed resolution ES 10-21, which calls for an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities. Singapore voted in favour of this resolution. In the same resolution, the General Assembly of the UN reiterated that unhindered access should be given to United Nations humanitarian agencies, the International Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, "That this House, having regard to the terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israel and the deepening humanitarian crisis arising from Israel's military operations in the Gaza strip: (a) expresses its deepest condolences to all innocent victims and civilian casualties; (b) advocates the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to the civilian population in Gaza; (c) condemns those responsible for the terrorist acts and violations of international law; (d) calls for all parties to ensure the safety and security of civilians, including the release of all hostages; (e) reiterates Singapore's long-standing commitment to a negotiated two-state solution consistent with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions; and (f) urges all Singaporeans to safeguard and uphold our multiracial and multi-religious peace and harmony." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Mr Alex Yam and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. (proc text)] Sir, the situation in the Gaza is tragic. On 7 October 2023, Israel was attacked by air, land and sea by Hamas. This included a physical invasion into Israeli territory and rocket attacks, killing more than 1,200 people in Israel, and with more than 200 being taken prisoner and held as hostages. Since then, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has moved into the Gaza with the aim of eliminating the threat from Hamas in self-defence. According to both the Reuters and BBC, the civilian death toll in the Gaza is more than 9,000. Over the weekend, I listened to stories played on BBC radio, interviewing family members of the victims of this war and those who have been living in the war zone. These were heart-wrenching.”
“I raised my hand because Ms Poa had asked me a question on what I thought of Mr Iswaran's suspension. But I think the Leader has addressed that.”
“Related to this, Ms Poa is proposing an amendment to PPIPA, which is legislation. Generally, legislation is meant to address the country at large and is not meant to be targeted at an individual or a particular case. It would actually be quite unprincipled to amend legislation for a single case. Additionally, if this legislation is meant to apply to Mr Iswaran for conduct he had engaged in prior to the legislation coming into place, this would also be a breach to the principle that legislation should not impose criminal liability retrospectively. For this reason, I also do not agree with the proposed amendments to the legislation. So, in brief, Mr Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the House that, at this time, we do not have enough information to make a decision to suspend Mr Iswaran and none of the clear provisions for suspension set out in both PPIPA and the SOs apply. I therefore support her Motion. I also disagree with the Motion put forward by Ms Hazel Poa because I believe that the powers of suspension should be exercised only in accordance with the express requirements of PPIPA and the SOs.”