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 5 of 16.
“What is interesting is SO59 is actually an Order that deals with the powers of the Speaker to propose a suspension of a Member: one, for disregard for the authority of the Chair; or two, persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of Parliament. These are the only express grounds in the SOs of Parliament that allow for the suspension of a Member. While these provisions have been used by Speakers in some other jurisdictions, in Singapore, I am not aware of any case where this power has been used to suspend a Member. So, I would suggest that if we are going to stray outside of these express provisions that give Parliament the power to suspend the Member, we have to be crystal clear on the principles being applied. It also goes against the principle of retrospective criminality for us to see what has happened and then decide that is wrong. It is important for laws to set out very clearly what is wrong first so that people know what standards they have to abide by. If you look at this Motion objectively, what is happening here is, if you just look at the facts, I think Ms Poa was Mr Iswaran's opponent in the West Coast Group Representation Constituency and has now put up a Motion calling for his suspension. If this is set as a precedent, imagine what this power would do on the opposite side, if a ruling party were to decide it wants to suspend a Member without any clear, principled basis. Those Motions would pass if the Party Whip were exercised. Clearly, that would not be a precedent we want to set. So, I would suggest that Members be very, very slow to put forward Motions calling for the suspension of another Member, especially where there has been no clear, principled basis for this.”
“The subsequent sections such as section 21 of PIPPA set out the process for making determinations. I would add that generally, fair process should be accorded to a Member before his privileges are suspended. Ms Poa seems to agree with this principle and acknowledges that ultimately, this is a matter that will be determined by the investigation process and, if necessary, by a Court thereafter. Generally, fair process includes the Member being made aware of the allegations against him and being given a chance to answer it. So, if Parliament wishes to exercise punitive powers before investigation is concluded, then that Member should be given a chance to answer those allegations. Clearly, I would suggest that in this case, that would not be appropriate because Mr Iswaran is being investigated by CPIB. Those investigations are taking place. Other witnesses are being called. It would be a bit of a circus for a second investigation to take place in Parliament over the exact same set of facts. Where there has been no determination that Mr Iswaran has committed any crimes or engaged in dishonourable conduct, I would suggest that the punitive powers of Parliament should not be exercised yet. In general, a person is presumed to be innocent until he has been convicted, and Mr Iswaran should be accorded the same right as every other person has. The SOs of Parliament have one provision dealing with the suspension of a Member and this is SO59. I think Ms Poa referred to SO59(5), which says that nothing in this Order will take away the general powers of Parliament to suspend the Member.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah. I also disagree with the Motion standing in the name of Ms Hazel Poa calling for the suspension of Mr Iswaran until the end of this term of Parliament. Our role as an MP, Mr Speaker, ultimately comes from the mandates at the ballot box. It should therefore not be taken away lightly. An MP is not an employee but, rather, is self-employed. Being an MP gives a person certain privileges, including the right to attend and speak in Parliament. Related to this, while an MP is self-employed, when an MP is elected on a party platform, that MP is also accountable to the party and the party's rules. Ultimately, the party is also, in turn, accountable to the electorate. So, if a party puts a Member on leave of absence, that party would ultimately be accountable to the electorate to ensure that the electorate continues to be served. These are all mechanisms that includes checks and balances within themselves. There are clear provisions, Mr Speaker, that allow Member's rights to be suspended. These are set out in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962, which I will refer to as PIPPA for short, and the SOs of Parliament. Section 20 of PIPPA sets out the punitive powers of Parliament. These punitive powers include, under section 20C, the powers to suspend a Member. So, let us be very clear. Suspension is a punitive measure. These powers can only be exercised where a Member has engaged in: one, dishonourable conduct; two, abused privilege; or three, engaged in contempt of Parliament. I do not think any of these accusations are currently being made in this Motion against Mr Iswaran.”
“I have two clarifications for Ms Hazel Poa. The first is: does Ms Hazel Poa agree with the presumption of innocence? And the second is: does Ms Hazel Poa agree that a person who is charged or accused of any wrongdoing should be given a chance to answer that charge and should know the applicable rule before he is charged?”
“I think these questions will give us a sense of how many people will be affected by the changes and the extent of that effect. I understand the rationale for these changes is to make clear the basis for losing PR and the removal of the avenue for appeal to Minister is to harmonise the avenues for appeal for other foreigners such as employment pass and long-term visit pass holders. However, I think people have generally regarded the PR status as being much more important. For many, it is part of a journey to citizenship, while for others, they could be husbands, wives or parents of Singaporeans. I think it would be helpful if PRs can be given assurance that their status is likely to be permanent as the name suggests as long as they reside in Singapore and are law-abidding. Generally, though, I think this Bill makes important exciting changes to our immigration process. Most Singaporeans can expect even more seamless and convenient travel. I, therefore, support this Bill.”
“If a good part of this traffic switches to the RTS, that may have the benefit of reducing vehicles and road congestion in Singapore. However, this option will become especially attractive if customs' clearance is automated for regular daily travellers. This may mean that travel from Singapore to Johor may one day be only a little bit more difficult than taking an MRT. Many of the other changes in this Bill include giving ICA officers the powers they need to prevent undesirable people from entering Singapore, including provisions giving them the power to detain, if necessary. The requirement for pre-clearance of passengers on board aircrafts and vessels also allow ICA to prevent undesirable people from boarding these vessels if they wish to come to Singapore. These are sensible measures and I think better for everyone involved. Currently, the only way to prevent these people entering Singapore is after they have already arrived but before they have cleared Customs. This means that individual concerns may have to be detained and repatriated. This step will be avoided if pre-clearance can be done. One area of concern for me is how permanent residents (PRs) are being dealt with. This Bill sets out a legal basis for people who may lose the PR status and also it removes the avenue of appeal to the Minister. To better understand the people being affected, I would be interested to know and I have a few clarifications here. The first is, how many PRs lose their status each year? The second – how many of these would appeal against such loss? Third, of those that appealed and failed, how many would take up the avenue to appeal to the Minister? And fourth, I know this last one may be a bit sensitive, how many such appeals have succeeded?”
“Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. Singapore's immigration has been one of the most user-friendly anywhere in the world. This latest Bill will make it even easier. The amendments allow further automated clearance for passengers, vehicles and cargo. Two of these changes, namely the advanced clearance for conveyances and for cargo, are likely to make a big difference in our land borders with Malaysia. I would like to ask the Minister whether the intention is to have automated clearance for most of the vehicles passing through the Causeway and the Tuas link. Related to this, is it envisioned that foreign nationals coming through these land borders will also be able to take advantage of these automated clearance measures? I definitely think these measures will increase the speed of clearance at customs. One concern that arises from this though is whether these changes will make checks become less stringent. In particular, does it mean that customs officials may not check people, vehicles and cargo for most vehicles passing through these checkpoints, or are there alternative automated methods for checking vehicles, cargo and passengers? I am also interested to know whether ICA intends to share data and information with other governments which may make automated clearance possible for foreigners in Singapore, and for Singaporeans abroad? The sharing of data may also be made consensual, meaning that frequent travellers who prefer to clear customs more quickly may consent to their data being shared with governments of countries they regularly visit. This may be especially useful once the RTS Link between Singapore and Johor starts operating. Currently, around half a million people cross the Causeway every day.”
“Just two quick clarifications. The first is, in relation to the people who died from suicide, was any analysis done on whether any of these people had sought assistance before that? The second supplementary question is whether or not access to mental health should be made as easily accessible as access to general practitioners (GPs), where some are allowed to use the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) card and so on for such consultations. It may be that access to regular counsellors or psychologists would be helpful to manage cases that are surfaced.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarifications. Then, perhaps the question that I should ask is: is the Senior Minister of State aware of whether retrenchment benefits are extended to workers beyond the age of 63, but before they reach the end of their re-employment retirement age?”
“Sir, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State and these are based on feedback I had received in my capacity as advisor to the Advanced Manufacturing Employees' Union (AMEU), with which I think the Senior Minister of State is very familiar. So, what I was informed is that for many senior workers who are above the age of 63, their EAP benefits are no longer tied to their years in service. So, what this means is, in substance, up to the age of 63, they are very expensive to lay off if they have been working for a long time. But after the age of 63, the EAP payments are no longer based on years in service. So, someone who was very expensive to lay off or retrench at the age of 63, suddenly becomes very cheap to lay off. And because senior workers also have the greatest difficulty getting re-employment, I think it is important for them to be protected. My first clarification is: the figure that was given for workers over 63, that is, only 3.8 per 1,000 were retrenched, does this also take into account workers who may have been retired and not re-employed? Because I understand that is the mechanism that is sometimes used. So, the worker is not actually re-employed and given early retirement. The second is, I think the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that the EAP is carefully calibrated and open to negotiation. I have two related clarifications on this: first, in relation to employees who have the benefit of collective agreements, how many of these collective agreements tie the EAP payments to years in service? And second, for employees without collective agreements, how many of them are eligible for retrenchment payments?”
“Thank you. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the following amendments: One, "In line 1, after the word 'commitment', to insert '(a)'". Two, "In line 2, to delete the words 'be independent and impartial' and to insert 'discharge his duties independently and impartially'; and Three, "At the end of line 2, to add 'and (b) to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962'". The amendments have been marked up in the handout for Members' reference. I agree with the PSP that the Speaker must act independently in the discharge of his duties. The first amendment reflects this. This is being suggested so that the Motion is not misinterpreted to mean that the Speaker cannot be from a political party in order to be independent. The amendment therefore focuses on the independence in the discharge of his duties, which is the standard Speakers in all Parliamentary systems are held to. The Speakers in many Commonwealth Parliamentary systems come from the ruling party and this has never been a basis to say Parliament is not a fair arena for debate. The second part of the amendment is, I think, equally important. As I had explained earlier, many of the rules that ensure Parliament is a fair arena, including the rights and obligations that Members have, are all actually in the Standing Orders and the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. These are rules that every Member should be committed to in our shared obligation to ensure Parliament is a fair arena. I therefore beg to move the Motion as amended, Mr Speaker. Thank you.”
“I will just wait for Members to get the copies.”
“Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]”
“The Speaker needs to get the support from the majority in Parliament. In practice, most of the Speakers have been from the ruling party, although there, too, were a few notable exceptions – just like in Singapore. The Speaker in the Australian Parliament has often had to exercise a much firmer hand than the Speaker in Singapore on Points of Order and breaches of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Yet, despite the Speaker being from a political party and exercising these powers, nobody has seriously suggested the Australian Parliament is not a fair arena for debate. I therefore do not think that the fact that the Speaker happens to be from a political party or from its leadership automatically means that he lacks independence in the performance of his duties as Speaker. Finally, I believe this obligation to keep Parliament a fair arena for all is not just for the Speaker, but also one in which every Member has a part. It is important for Members to respect the Standing Orders so that other Members would also have opportunities to speak and raise the points they need to speak. It is thus important for all Members to honour and comply with their obligations as set out in the Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. Against this backdrop, Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to the Motion?”
“The UK has a practice of the Speaker resigning from his political party upon nomination and actually being "dragged", supposedly unwillingly, from this chair to take the seat of the Speaker. This is because of the history of the Speaker sometimes having to deliver uncomfortable news to the Crown and for which he may face the consequences. However, even though the Speaker may resign from his party upon nomination, it is clear that he still has the support of the party that commands the majority in Parliament and, in most cases, was a former member of that party. That would suggest his personal beliefs are likely to be aligned with the party he was a member of. Notwithstanding that, in the discharge of his duties, he is expected to be independent and impartial. There are other peculiarities in the UK's approach, including that the Speaker's seat is generally uncontested by other parties and he campaigns as Speaker. He is thus likely to get re-elected unchallenged if campaigning as a Speaker. This means that, unlike the Singapore system, where people vote for all legislators, including the Speaker, in the UK, the Speaker would not be subject to a challenge at the ballot box. So, his accountability in that sense is only to the Parliament itself, should the majority nominate him again. Whereas under our system, as I mentioned, the Speaker has three sets of checks: the party he is from, the Parliament itself, and third, the ballot box. This is a different approach, but I do not think it is necessarily superior to the one we have. There are other Commonwealth Countries, such as Australia, which have a system very similar to ours. There, the Speaker remains a member of a political party and will have to campaign for re-election like any other Member.”
“All these matters provided for in Parliament's Standing Orders give every Member, whether from the ruling party or the opposition, the opportunity to raise and discuss matters they feel are important. In keeping Parliament a fair arena, it is therefore also important for all Members to respect and comply with these rules. The substance of keeping Parliament a fair arena is, I would respectfully say, largely captured in these rules and the law. The Speaker has the duty to ensure observance of the Standing Orders by Members in Parliamentary proceedings and must be independent and impartial in doing so. If, indeed, there is any allegation that the Speaker has not acted independently and impartially in his decisions, this should be the subject of a specific Motion. No such Motion has been put forward. Our process also has its checks on the Speaker's conduct should the Speaker fail to discharge his duties properly. The first is the Speaker's own party, if it feels the Speaker has not acted properly in any way. The second is Parliament itself, where Members are free to raise any objections they may wish to or even file the necessary Motion. Third, the ultimate check on a Member of the legislature is the ballot box. As Parliamentary debates are public, every action that the Speaker may take is up for public scrutiny. If there is any allegation that he has been unfair or impartial in the discharge of his duties, that is something the voters may take into account, both against him and even the party he is from, if the party endorses that conduct. I think Mr Leong has made some references to the UK and the Speaker there. I would say different countries may have different practices in selecting the Speaker.”
“In Mr Abdullah Tarmugi's case, he was a member of the Cabinet, so, he was a part of the core leadership team before becoming a Speaker. They were appointed the same way as their predecessors, namely, nominated by the Prime Minister and elected by the House. The fact that the Speaker is from the ruling party is not something that should take away from the discharge of their duties. The Speaker is still required to discharge their duties independently and impartially. The Motion talks about Parliament being a fair arena. However, the fairness of Parliament is not just dependent on the individual who is the Speaker. The Speaker himself, like all Members, is bound by Parliament's Standing Orders as well as the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. Parliament's Standing Orders give Members who wish to speak a wide range of opportunities to do so. They may file Parliamentary Questions for written or oral answer, which Ministers will have to address publicly. They may speak on any Bills put forward by the Government, meaning, they have a say on any and every piece of legislation that passes this House. They may file Adjournment Motions if they need more time to speak on a specific issue and, again, the relevant Ministry will be required to address the issues raised. Finally, if they wish to speak at length on a topic, they may file a Motion, which Mr Leong is doing today. The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act sets out additional protections for MPs, including freedom of speech such that anything that is said in Parliament is generally protected from proceedings in Court or any other forum, other than Parliament itself, which is why the Parliament is the first port of call if Members were to breach the Standing Orders.”
“One of the most important differences is that a Judge makes decisions on the facts before them and their decisions bind all parties on those facts. The Speaker, on the other hand, presides over Parliamentary proceedings, and while the Speaker may make decisions on procedural issues, the substantive decisions are made by the legislative chamber itself. Bills can only be passed by elected representatives. The Speaker does not have the power to force a Bill through. Before Singapore’s independence, when we had a Legislative Assembly under British Rule, the first Speaker, Sir George Oehlers, was appointed by the Governor-General, who was the representative of the Crown, and this was in 1955. Since Independence though, Singapore, like the UK and all other Commonwealth countries, had its own Parliament and the Speaker was one who was voted in by the majority of legislators in Parliament. As a matter of practice, the Speaker was nominated by the Prime Minister since the Prime Minister is the individual who commands the support of the majority in the House. The Speaker in Singapore does not have to be from the ruling party, but usually is. After Sir George Oehlers, our next Speaker was Mr EW Barker in 1963 and he was also a very successful lawyer. But he was a member of the ruling party. The next Speakers after him, Mr AP Rajah and Mr Punch Coomaraswamy, were not members of the ruling party but they were nominated by the Prime Minister and endorsed by the majority of the House. Following that, from 1970, we had three of our longest serving Speakers: Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. The three of them took us all the way from 1970 to 2011. All three were members of the PAP.”
“Mr Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as well. The position of the Speaker of Parliament exists in almost all modern parliamentary systems. The Speaker is a generally a Member of the House that is selected by fellow Members with a majority of the vote. While Singapore’s Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of Parliament (MP), the general practice has been for the Speaker to be an elected Member. In most countries, the result of these two practices, namely (a) the Speaker being an MP and (b) the Speaker being elected by the majority of the House is often that the Speaker is an MP from the ruling party. There are times when non-ruling party MPs get elected as Speaker, and in Singapore's case, when non-MPs also get elected as Speakers, but this is the exception rather than the rule. PSP's proposal does not seem to be suggesting we do away with this completely, but just seems to suggest within certain parameters around which the person should be selected, namely that the individual should not have been a part of the core leadership team of the ruling party. I do not think there is the need for this additional limitation and I will explain this in my speech. The most important point is the Speaker has to command the support of the majority in Parliament. Why is this important? The Speaker has the duty to preside over the elected representatives in the Chamber and he must in turn have their mandate to do so. Otherwise, you will have the anomalous situation of an unelected person potentially controlling the proceedings of the elected officials. I think while my colleague Mr Leong highlighted some similarities between the role of a Judge and the role of a Speaker, there are also some important differences.”
“I think Mr Singh has not answered my question which was, did he call him up for an interview? Was it conveyed to him that he needed to collate further corroboratory evidence?”
“Okay. The first question was, if you receive information from a credible source who is close to the wrongdoing that something has happened, normally, in a proper organisation, that would be treated as a whistle-blower report. Steps would be taken to protect that person and that person would be called up for further interviews. Was this driver called up for a further interview?”
“I can confirm that I did not see the video before it was all over the public domain, but I have a few further clarifications. Do you not think that if you received credible evidence from someone who is close to an indiscretion – I mean a whistle-blower, this is how issues normally come up – that you should actually take efforts to interview the person to get more information? Was that done? The second is this: you mentioned that you did not tell Mr Perera or you did not reveal the source of information. How did you tell Mr Perera you came to know about this indiscretion? Did you say the driver told you?”
“I have listened to the press conference. But I have not heard any explanation as to why the driver was not called up for an interview after those details were given. Nor was there anything in the press conference that addressed the issue of whether steps were taken to protect the driver's identity as an informant.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification for the Leader of the Opposition, arising from his earlier invitation, where he said he is prepared to answer any question about his party's handling of the indiscretion between his two party members. There is evidence in public of a video by Mr Perera's driver who said he had told Mr Singh as well as other MPs, including Ms Sylvia Lim and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, about the indiscretions Mr Perera was engaging in, including going to hotels, going to restaurants and so on. Could Mr Singh please tell this House why nothing was done at the material time? The second clarification is: were any steps taken to protect the identity of the driver as the informant?”
“I thank the Minister for a very clear explanation on a difficult and emotive topic. I have a few clarifications on this five-year COE being brought forward. The first is: is this just one-off to deal with the current trough or is this going to be a change in approach to how the five-year COEs are dealt with? The second clarification is that I believe the Minister said they would be re-allocated to Cat A. I just want to clarify, would they be re-allocated according to the expiring category or would they all be re-allocated only to Cat A? The third clarification is I just wish to make the point that I think it is sensible to smoothen out the supply over the long term. Any measures to help do that would be fair.”
“Yet, because of the shortage of teachers, I understand some schools have been forced to combine Tamil classes with children in different subject-based bands coming together for the same class. This makes common teaching difficult. It will be helpful to know if the Ministry of Education (MOE) has any plans to deal with this issue. This may include plans on how we may develop a larger pipeline of Tamil teachers for our Government schools and preschools. The learning of Tamil in Singapore has come a long way, with quiet support from the Government going a long way. I am grateful for this support and hope it will continue.”
“The Tamil Language Council supports the Tamil Language Festival. Another committee, the Tamil Language Learning and Promotion Committee, otherwise known as TLLPC – which I have chaired for several years – offers support for the learning of Tamil outside of classrooms. The TLLPC team organises events and supports activities throughout the year to make the use and learning of Tamil language fun. Grants are also given for the production of local Tamil content by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) under its Public Service Broadcast Programme and this allows for the creation of good quality local content, which is monitored by the Indian Programme Advisory Committee. This support is commendable and has helped the Tamil language remain a vibrant language in Singapore. Tamil is now also widely offered across more schools. When I was in preschool in the 1980s, it would have been very difficult to find preschools offering Tamil as a second language. When my father was in primary school in the 1950s, he started studying Tamil in Primary 1, but had to drop it in Primary 3 when his teacher passed away and no replacement could be found. He then had to switch to the Malay language. We have come a long way from those days, with Tamil now available across many preschools and government schools. One issue that has arisen now though is the shortage of Tamil teachers in schools. As the number of Tamil students are small, there are fewer Tamil teachers than for other Mother Tongue languages. However, even though the number of children is small, the Tamil children in schools still have a variety of different needs, including children across different age groups and with different subject-based banding.”
“Parents across all income groups try their best to supplement what their children learn in school with tuition. In HDB heartland malls, an increasingly larger footprint is being used for such services. While such services are helpful for children, there is a concern by parents who cannot afford such services that their children may lose out. I have some parents who come to MPS to seek assistance when they are going through a rough patch and they often indicate their children’s tuition expenses are part of their normal monthly expenditures. Of course, MSF rarely gives financial assistance to cope with such expenses. There are other self-help groups that come in to provide support for this but it will be good if we can develop a system that places less emphasis on tuition. Education in our schools is highly affordable and of a very high quality. It is important that parents believe such education is adequate for their children and that children who are unable to attend or afford tuition and enrichment classes do not get left behind. This is an important part of keeping our playing field open for children of all backgrounds to thrive. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The reopening of Parliament this time coincides with the Tamil Language Festival. This year there are 42 events being organised by a range of different organisations. This event receives strong but quiet support from the Government, which through the Tamil Language Council, provides grants for the organisation of events at this festival. I am grateful to the Government for its strong support for the Tamil language in Singapore. The Tamil speaking community makes up around 5% of our population and it is one of Singapore’s official languages. The Government supports the language in many ways.”
“At the same time, with higher incomes all round, the cost of living is generally higher as higher incomes for citizens translates into higher costs for wages for businesses and higher rentals as people pay more and compete for the real estate. Additionally, global inflationary pressures and higher interest rates also add to pressures in the cost of living for Singaporeans. Against this backdrop, I think the measures in the President’s Address to ensure that Singaporeans continue to have opportunities to train and get employment throughout their working lives is vital. I would also suggest that this be coupled with income support while people undergo training. This should be enough to tide them over temporary rough patches. Going to an earlier stage, I think it is important for our schools to remain the great leveller for education. In the past, children would attend school and learn things like the alphabet from there. I recall entering Primary 1 without any knowledge of how to read or write Tamil, but it was still possible to learn from scratch. Now, with most children having preschool education, the entry benchmark has risen and basic literacy and numeracy is required for children attending Primary 1, failing which, more may fall behind. This means those who miss preschool, who are predominantly from lower-income families, will start off on the back foot. It is therefore even more important to ensure that preschool is attended by all children and either make this compulsory or have strong measures in place to encourage universal attendance. The next matter, which I think has been alluded to by some of the earlier speakers, is the proliferation of tuition, even after children attend school.”
“In the long run, this is likely to create more silos and a divided world. The multilateral system is not dead, but I think it is important for those that believe in its importance to continue to speak up for it and help bring in those who are sceptical. The source of the scepticism is that free trade has sometimes exaggerated the differences between the rich and the poor in different countries. As jobs and roles move to different countries, there will inevitably be winners and losers at home. For those who believe in multilateralism, I think it is important for us to acknowledge some of these side effects and then have domestic policies that correct for this. I think the multilateral system has benefits for everyone, not least of which is greater security. And in this testing time, we need to win back as many of the sceptics as we can. Singapore itself has not been immune to some of these effects and this leads me to the second area I wish to address in my speech. The President’s Address acknowledged the importance of Singapore continuing to grow, but that these opportunities must be shared equitably. I believe this is fundamental to preserving our society where everyone has opportunities. Singapore’s growth over the years has been remarkable and, as we moved from third world to first, the living standards of almost all our people improved dramatically. However, now that we are a developed country and our GDP per capita is among the highest in the world, continuing to be a growing high-income country is more difficult. We need to find better, higher-paying jobs for our citizens.”
“Mr Speaker, Singapore’s Independence was a product of the post-war decolonialisation wave, that started in the late 1940s with the independence of India. That was also the period that saw the birth of the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and, in later years, the World Trade Organization (WTO). These organisations formed the backbone of the modern multilateral world we live in. Common values recognised in international law included the recognition of the sovereignty of nations and the prohibition against the use of force except in self defence. With the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO, trade among nations grew and the world became more interconnected. This was a backdrop that was conducive to Singapore’s growth as a small nation since the rule of law is especially important for protecting the small and the vulnerable. The last few years have seen an unprecedented retreat from multilateralism. Russia’s attack on Ukraine was a breach of the UN Charter and the prohibition against the use of force. However, Russia, through its predecessor state, the USSR, is also a charter member of the UN with a veto in the security council. The breach of the UN Charter by a charter member is worrying for the rule of law and it is important for the rest of the world to take a firm stand on this if we intend to maintain the rule of law. Two of the biggest beneficiaries of the liberalisation of trade following GATT and the WTO are the US and China. They are now the two biggest economies in the world. Yet, the rivalry between the two is now threatening the system on which both prospered. Other countries are also taking their cue from the superpowers, and we see increasing calls for protectionism from different countries.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. That is a helpful explanation. I think the issue arises particularly with vulnerable families or less-educated individuals and the CPF Nomination Scheme was meant to be an easy way to avoid people having to write wills if their only asset was CPF. Two areas of complications arise. One, is in the event of bankruptcy. So, for example, if an individual is bankrupt, his CPF monies would go to his nominee, which could be the wife. But if it were to go to the estate, it would all go to the creditors. I had a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) case, for example, where a bankrupt had CPF monies which could not be touched by the creditors, which he was hoping to go to the wife, but because they had gone into investments, they went to the creditors. The second, is again bankruptcy, but, where one of the recipients is a bankrupt. In this case, the nominee was the wife, but, because the money were in investments, they went to the estate. There was no will, so half of it would go to a child, who happened to be a bankrupt; and the other half would go to the wife. But then, the creditors then come in to decide how to sell the assets. Another solution may be, to have the assets go to the nominee and then the nominee can decide when to sell, because the beneficiary and the estate may be quite different from the nominee.”
“I would be grateful if the Ministry can share how well utilised these services have been so far, including how many applications there were and how many have been provided with public defenders to represent them. Does the Ministry expect an increase to the numbers of people applying for public defence? Finally, will the Ministry also explain the considerations behind the means test and the difference for the means test for the PDO and the Legal Aid Bureau? Progress on the Public Defender's Office”
“Chair, the Legal Aid Bureau is an important pillar of the access to justice, providing legal advice to those with lower income. Those who qualify for legal aid get free or low-cost legal representation and protection from adverse cost consequences if a decision goes against them. However, there remains a significant cliff effect for those who fail to qualify for legal aid, since they will be on the hook for both legal fees and potential cost consequences. The threshold includes having per capita income of less than $950 and savings of less than $10,000. This creates some anomalies. I have encountered divorce cases where one party, usually the wife who is not working, qualifies for legal aid while the husband, who works but has a low-paying job, would not qualify for legal aid and ends up being unrepresented and at a disadvantage in the Court process. In relation to this, I understand the Legal Aid Bureau has launched Divorce AIDE last year. How well has the service been utilised so far? Are there any further improvements envisioned for legal aid? Public Defender's Office While the Legal Aid Bureau had provided assistance on civil matters for individuals who need assistance in criminal matters, it was the Law Society's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme that had provided this assistance for many years. Last year, in line with the announcement at the Committee of Supply (COS) debate, the Public Defender's Office (PDO) was launched, with the aim of providing assistance for criminal defence work. The qualifying criteria is for people with household incomes of less than $1,500 and savings of less than $10,000. Certain types of cases are also excluded, including those punishable by death and those involving syndicated crimes.”
“I just want to pick up on the point on international scams. I do not know whether it is Minister or the Senior Minister of State, but of the number of scams that are routed internationally, what percentage would that be and how effective are we in capturing these and recovering proceeds? I think you mentioned a number of about 70 people have been arrested, but what percentage is that of the bigger pool?”
“Chairman, earlier this month, the Police released data on cybercrime which was reported by CNA, and the figures were sobering. The amount lost to online scams the last two years has been staggering, around $632 million in 2021 and $661 million in 2022. The total number of cybercrime cases rose by around 25% to 33,669 cases, compared to 26,886 cases the year before. Scams accounted for 94.2% of these cases. Of these cybercrime cases, scams accounted for 94%. The top five scam types were phishing scams, job scams, e-commerce scams, investment scams and fake friend call scams. They made up about 80% of the top 10 scams. The largest amounts lost were to investment scams, about $198.8 million, followed by job scams, which caused around $117.4 million in losses. Somewhat surprisingly, at least to me, the largest group of victims were young adults, aged 20 to 39, who made up around 53% of all victims. It is good that the Police is keeping tracks and close tabs on cybercrime data and able to produce such information on the issue. I am interested to know what steps are being taken to combat cybercrime, and whether the existing steps are enough. In particular, I wonder whether the Police believe any further steps need to be taken in educating the public better, as well as steps that are required to catch and prosecute the perpetrators. Where these perpetrators are abroad, which I believe happens in many of the scams, have we had any success in capturing the perpetrators and/or recovering assets for victims?”
“Chairman, cybercrime is a broad area. The Police have described the two categories as cyber-enabled offences and cyber dependent offences. Cyber dependent offences are those where digital assets are the target and includes hacking, ransomware and website defacements. These of these offences are covered by the Computer Misuse Act. On the other hand, cyber-enabled crimes relate to crimes that are facilitated by the computer and include the wide range of scams, cyber harassment, cyber extortion and illegal online gambling. These are currently covered by different pieces of legislation, including the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act. Both areas seem to have been growing. In relation to cyber dependent crimes, a total of 1.8 million web threats against Internet users were detected and blocked in Singapore between April and June 2022, according to data obtained from Kaspersky Security Network, and this was a 17.6% rise from the previous year. On cyber-enabled crimes, The Straits Times reported that around $661 million was lost to online scams in 2022. While there are a wide range of tools that are needed to deal with such crimes, legislation is obviously an important component. Does MHA see any gaps in the existing legislative framework to deal with cybercrime? 3.30 pm At the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2022, MHA mentioned that it was working on a framework to deal with a broad suite of online criminal activity. How will this framework relate to the existing legislation?”
“I would like to thank Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Second Minister Mohd Maliki bin Osman and Senior Minister of State Sim Ann for sharing with us the works of the Ministry, and also want to thank all the civil servants in our embassies all over the world. With that, Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my cut. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $514,857,600 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $18,000,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“I thank the two Ministers and Senior Minister of State. I have one clarification on the China-US matter. It is clear that Singapore has extensive and deep relations with both countries. Is there anything that Singapore has envisioned to try and bring both parties together on some of the difficult issues?”
“The FIR sets out the agreed boundaries between Singapore and Indonesia in responsibilities for the FIR, with Indonesia delegating responsibility to Singapore for 25 years to provide continuity with what is going on today. There is an option to renew this delegation beyond 25 years, if both parties wish. The Defence Cooperation Agreement provided for both governments to ratify and implement the 2007 agreement. This provides for cooperation between the armed forces and also permits the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to continue training in South China Sea Danger Area, where it had been training since the 1960s. The extradition treaty provides for a complete list of extraditable offences between Singapore and Indonesia and builds on and formalises existing practices, where law enforcement agencies already cooperate with each other. In January this year, MFA announced that Indonesia had ratified all three treaties. This means that the agreements have received the necessary internal support from the Indonesian legislature. These are promising developments. I will be grateful if the Minister can give an update on the status of the implementation of these three agreements and whether anything further needs to be done. Support for Myanmar by ASEAN”
“Chairman, Singapore and Indonesia have had a long-standing and deep relationship tracing back to the late 1960s, following the end of the Konfrontasi. Both were founding members of ASEAN and economic ties between both have been deep. Singapore is the largest foreign investor in Indonesia and both countries are each other's largest source of foreign visitors. The government-to-government and people-to-people ties are strong and close at many levels. Yet, even between friendly neighbours, there will be differences and matters that need to be resolved. The Prime Ministers of both countries meet regularly and try to address these matters. Last year, Prime Minister Lee and Indonesian Prime Minister Joko Widodo held their Leaders' Retreat in January 2022 in Indonesia, where they witnessed a set of agreements on three long-standing bilateral issues under an Expanded Framework. They were an Agreement on the Realignment of the Boundary between the Jakarta FIR and the Singapore FIR, a Treaty for the Extradition of Fugitives, and a Joint Statement between the Defence Ministers on the 2007 Defence Cooperation Agreement. These were longstanding matters. We signed the first FIR with Indonesia and the first agreement on military cooperation in 1995. The military agreement was implemented for a few years and then lapsed. The FIR could not be implemented because of external factors. In 2007, agreements were reached on both defence cooperation and extradition, but these were not ratified by Indonesia at the time. 12.45 pm Each of the points that were agreed upon last year give clarity to matters that are important to both countries and were negotiated as part of a framework to create a good balance of benefits for both sides.”
“Individuals have also not been spared. Following US sanctions on Hong Kong lawmakers in the wake of the unrest there, China had responded with sanctions on US lawmakers too, including members of President Trump’s administration and lawmakers, such as Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. This rivalry has also manifested itself in the realm of critical technologies. For example, the US last year imposed restrictions on the sales of advanced semiconductor chips, especially those with wide applications in artificial intelligence (AI) to China. While these measures are not targeted at Singapore, our semiconductor industry could potentially be impacted, given the highly complex nature of semi-conductor supply chains. In a more general dial-back of trade liberalisation, the last few years have seen both countries announce trade restrictions and sanctions against entities and individuals on both sides. We can expect more intense and vigorous competition between both powers in the years ahead. What are the key risks and challenges for Singapore and the region arising from intensifying US-China competition? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] US-China Relations”
“Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100." A key source of geopolitical uncertainty is the growing United States (US)-China rivalry. The hope for many of us is that both the US and China find a way to co-exist together. As the two largest economic powers, their peaceful co-existence could allow Asia and the rest of the world to continue to prosper in peace. Unfortunately, this rivalry seems to have grown and intensified over the years. Last year, US Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in the face of objections and threats of dire consequences from China. The message she wanted to send as clear – that the US stands firmly behind its ally, Taiwan. China responded with joint military exercises in the Taiwan straits and unprecedented missile overflights over Taiwan. While this rivalry had started out as a largely economic one, the risk of a military confrontation has suddenly also become more real. The economic rivalry itself should not be underestimated. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, there was a wave of US investment into China and trade from China with the world blossomed. This was like a golden age for economic prosperity following the end of the Cold War. The last few years though have marked a sharp reversal of this trend. As the rivalry between China and the US intensified, US companies have started leaving China. Amazon, Yahoo and Linked In are the latest companies to announce exits from China, following Google which exited more than a decade ago. Prior to this, other well-known names such as Macy’s, Home Depot, eBay and Best Buy have entered and exited China. The Chinese company Huawei was hit with restrictions in 2019 and China followed with its own restrictions on various US sectors.”
“Thank you. I would like to thank Minister and Senior Ministers of State for sharing the plans for MINDEF. It looks like the House is supportive and it is being passed without clarification. So, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $17,128,091,700 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of$1,451,310,000 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Chairman, technology has transformed the military domain. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict appears to have spurred the adoption of new technologies and we see drones being used with lethal force. This has the crucial benefit of reducing the risk of losing lives by combatants. I have been a big supporter of new technologies, particularly unmanned battle platforms and even automated warfare. During last year’s Committee of Supply debate, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) unveiled further plans to build up the Next Generation SAF. Of these new assets and capabilities, unmanned technologies were identified as a focal point. I would therefore like to seek views from the Minister for Defence on the SAF’s adoption of emerging and cutting-edge military technologies, and whether this would help it to remain agile and capable in responding to the range of threats. How will the SAF use these new military technologies as it continues to develop?”
“The Russia-Ukraine war has had spill-over effects, which have fundamentally changed the global order. Some of these include the hardening of military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which have now awakened and started growing again and increased defence spending amongst European countries. Russia for its part has announced the suspension of its commitment to the New Start Treaty which the US and Russia entered into to stop nuclear proliferation amongst the two largest nuclear powers. This may restart the nuclear arms race, which has been suspended since the 1980s. As the war continues, there may be more unintended and unexpected consequences that countries, including Singapore, have to deal with. Could the Minister for Defence therefore comment on the implications of the war in Ukraine for Singapore’s security, as well as the key lessons learnt from the war for us? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Defence Plans and Priorities”
“As the strategic competition worsens between the two major powers, Singapore may be caught in the cross-fire. In addition, middle powers have also taken a greater interest in our region and started to develop more robust strategies to grow their presence in the Asia Pacific. While many of these are friendly nations, with the growing number of such powers seeking to establish a foothold here, the regional security environment could become increasingly contested and busier. On the Korean peninsula, North Korea has conducted further ballistic missile tests, drawing swift condemnation from neighbours South Korea and Japan and many parts of the world community. Japan, which had remained a generally pacifist nation since World War II has started to remilitarise in response to the rising military pressures around it. The challenges ahead for Singapore are many. Could the Minister for Defence therefore provide an update on the major global and regional trends that MINDEF and SAF are closely monitoring, and how MINDEF and SAF will be affected by these trends? War in Ukraine I had earlier highlighted the major geopolitical and security developments that have shaped the environment around us. I would like to now focus on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and in particular, the implications for Singapore’s security. When the war broke out, many believed that Russia would quickly overwhelm Ukraine and take over. But instead, what has happened is that Ukraine has put up a spirited and vigorous defence, and they have gotten support, at least in terms of the equipment and finances from powers around them. With both sides unwilling to yield, the war will likely persist for some time. Although quite far away, we should monitor events unfolding in Ukraine and Europe.”
“Chairman, I beg to move "That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Singapore had a turbulent journey to Independence, with our pioneer generation of leaders living through both World War II, and at the cusp of independence, the Konfrontasi between Indonesia and Malaysia. We started National Service in 1967 and over the years, have slowly and steadily built the SAF into a strong and credible defence force. Singapore has lived with relative peace and prosperity ever since. An important reason for our peaceful environment was the commitment of the major world powers to peaceful co-existence in accordance with the UN Charter for the last eight decades or so since World War II. However, the commitment to multi-lateralism has eroded over time and one recent example would be Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February last year. While some parts of the world community were quick to condemn the aggression and breach of international law, this cry was not universal. Every time an act of aggression takes place without consequences for the aggressor, the more each country has to fear for its own safety. There are also worrying developments closer to home. The strategic rivalry between the US and China is intensifying. Recent incidents, such as then-US Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan and the more recent shooting of China’s hot air balloons over the US have upped the ante, resulting in the cancellation of diplomatic meetings that could have facilitated constructive dialogue. There have also been more military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, one of the traditional flash points in the relationship. Both countries have also doubled down on the implementation of exclusionary measures, especially in the trade and technology spheres.”
“This Budget has comprehensive assistance for such young families – assistance in getting BTOs with a second ballot, higher grants to assist them to buy resale flats as an alternative and, importantly, assistance for children's expenses all the way from birth (Baby Bonus); preschool (CDA account top-up); school (Edusave top-up) and tertiary (PSEA top-up). I support this Budget that provides important support to assist with the cost of living and which allows for people to face the upcoming year with optimism.”
“Singapore is one of the few places where the Government provides such significant and wide-ranging support to the private business community to help them to grow and develop. One suggestion I have though is that when the Government gives out generous grants to businesses or tax breaks, the Government should also put into place requirements for them to share the benefits and profits from such investments – at the very least with employees at all levels, and at best, with the broader community. I think it is fair to put conditions and expectations on private enterprises that benefit from the public purse. This will also ensure a more equitable distribution of the profits if those ventures do well. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will continue in Tamil. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The previous year has been a challenging one. Although the COVID-19 restrictions have eased, the war in Ukraine has caused global commodity prices to spike and this in turn has caused inflation all the way down the value chain. To deal with this inflation, central banks have raised interest rates and this has added to cost of business for companies and cost of living for ordinary people. This Budget has a wide range of measures to help alleviate the immediate cost of living issues we will face – GST Vouchers, CDC Vouchers, Cost of Living, U-Save Vouchers. There is a special bonus for seniors, which is fair since many of them will no longer be able to continue working. Young families have also given feedback that difficulty getting flats and the rising cost of living have been deterring them from starting families.”