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 8 of 16.
“Another issue that arises I think in relation to vulnerable victims is whether or not they should have earlier access to legal counsel. In Singapore, accused are allowed to access to legal counsel after a reasonable time. In other systems, it is allowed at an earlier time. So, I would the Minister consider earlier access to legal counsel?”
“So, these landlords may also be facing difficulties. Retirees are another group of people who may have investment properties and rely on rental income to pay for their retirement. Related to this, I have two questions for the Minister. How will the framework ensure that landlords are not unfairly burdened by the termination of leases? Second, businesses will have six weeks to decide whether to invoke the framework and parties will have four weeks to negotiate, failing which the contract may terminate. Is it envisioned that landlords will face a sudden increase in vacant properties within a short timeframe? If so, what should landlords do in this situation? Notwithstanding the questions I have raised, I believe this is a well thought through and necessary Bill that helps many businesses to continue or at least exit with less difficulty. I support the Bill. 5.10 pm”
“So, businesses may be locked into long-term contracts and this may be difficult for them to get out of. So, on the one hand, they cannot terminate the contracts if they are locked in, say, a two-year lease. But on the other hand, because their business is completely impacted, they have no way of making those payments. So, what this amendment does is that it actually gives companies like that an option to terminate the lease if they want to, an option they do not otherwise have. But what the Bill also hopes to for is that giving companies this option to terminate will allow them to renegotiate their existing obligations. I think this is a very powerful mechanism to help what we expect will be the weaker party in the contract, the one that is locked into unfavourable terms. I hope that all businesses act in the spirit of this legislation and actually renegotiate their obligations, rather than end up at the default termination if they do not. But I should also mention while this mechanism is likely to give many smaller operators greater leeway in negotiations, it is also important that we do not forget that landlords, too, are likely to be affected by this range of measures. There is a whole spectrum of landlords. You may have big landlords all the way to small landlords. While we may not look at big landlords very favourably, it is also important to understand that many big landlords, especially the corporate ones, may have obligations to lenders who are financing their operations, they have employees to pay for. So, they would also have obligations. Of course, for smaller landlords, it is far easier to understand their plight. Some of them may have heavily leveraged to pay for properties and may require rentals to pay off their loans.”
“Of course, for this process to work effectively, the OA must have enough capacity to meet a caseload that would previously have been handled by the Courts and make decisions quickly as a moratorium can make the difference between life and death for small companies. One last point, as I note that the main driver for these amendments is the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to put in place urgent measures to help businesses survive during this period. I would suggest that if this process proves efficient and effective, we should consider making these amendments a permanent feature of our legislation rather than just a temporary measure for these times. In the second part of my speech, I will address the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 3) Bill. This is actually the fourth Bill in relation to COVID-19 put forward by MinLaw. COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on our economy, and industries like aviation, tourism, oil & gas and retail continue to remain under water. Our national carrier, Singapore Airlines, is on life support and, recently, Robinson's, once our flagship retail store, announced its plans to close its remaining stores in Singapore. While many sectors have reopened, some do not have clarity on the horizon. This includes sectors like tourism, aviation and nightlife-related businesses. One of the features in the new latest COVID-19 amendments is a mechanism under section 42, which actually allows businesses to terminate obligations they would not otherwise be able to. But before doing that, they can actually trigger a process to renegotiate contracts and, in particular, paying slight rental obligations. This, to me, is actually a very powerful mechanism, if we look at it from the prism of businesses that are affected.”
“So, for small companies, they generally do not commence the debt restructuring process themselves and are often led into winding up or insolvency when one of their creditors finally decides to wind-up the company. Before that, it is likely that the creditors would have seized and sold whatever assets they could to satisfy their debts. So, what would be left may well be a rump company. So, these latest amendments provide a more efficient and cheaper insolvency process. These amendments permit a company with the support of a special resolution – 75% of shareholders and two-thirds of its creditors in support – to apply to the Official Receiver to come under this regime. This should not be difficult to do if the company has a few creditors and only a few shareholders, which is the case for many smaller companies. Once these parties agree, it can go into this process and get a moratorium on its liabilities. Additionally, if the business is viable, it would be able to enter into a process similar to a scheme of arrangement which allows the management to stay in place and operate the company with a view to repaying creditors through operating the company. This process may seem "rough and ready" compared to the insolvency process in the Courts. But I think it is a fair trade-off for lower costs and efficiency. The onus will be on company officers to ensure proper disclosures have been made in the course of the application process and all creditors will receive notification of the process and can participate if they wish. This, to me, is a very practical solution and I think it will work well.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of both Bills. I declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer who handles insolvency matters in the course of my work. The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act or IRDA which came into effect in July this year is an important reframing and harmonising of the insolvency regime in Singapore, which was previously found largely in the Companies Act and the Bankruptcy Act. The general principles governing the insolvency regime have been to ensure that all interested parties will have a say in the insolvency process, depending on their interest in the company. So, for solvent companies, the winding up process can be commenced by shareholders. For insolvent companies, typically, it is the creditors that commence the winding up process. This process, generally, requires public notification and an order by the Court. Interested parties can appear in Court and either object to or be heard in the process if they wished. While many envision insolvency as a creditor-driven process, the insolvency process also provides important protections for debtors, including protections like moratoriums on enforcement actions and, in some cases, this will even permit the companies to operate. So, the current insolvency regime includes schemes of arrangement or judicial management systems which allow companies to continue to be run. This has the important benefit of preserving jobs for employees while also allowing creditors better recovery than a fire sale of assets. The main downside of this process is that it can be costly and, for many small companies, especially those that have financial difficulties, the cost of such a process can be prohibitive.”
“Given that we do not know when hard hit sectors will recover and given the current warnings that the economic scarring is likely to take full effect in the coming months om the MAS, I think it is important for us to continue to create new opportunities so that displaced workers can find new jobs. While “creative destruction” is a necessary component of development and progress, as a Government, I think we can help our people to continue with their lives even if the businesses they are working in get disrupted and they are forced to change. 5.47 pm”
“Singaporean businesses also continue to be under pressure and as Government support is taken away, things may get more difficult, which is why it is important to continue to provide some buffer for them to stay in business. Against this backdrop, I believe these latest Budget measures provide a well-thought through suite of measures focused on economic continuity. I think it rightly recognises that performance across sectors is uneven and provides tailored support as needed. So, in sectors such as aviation, retail and tourism, support packages, which include the Enhanced Aviation Support Package, which is a temporary redeployment scheme for affected employees so that they can still get jobs at the moment while at the same time, they get to return to the industry if it recovers. The wage support packages for hiring new employees are helpful, particularly for companies in the start-up sector, as it helps share the risk of hiring new workers. That greater support is given for hiring workers above 40 or workers with disabilities is also a good incentive to help groups that may otherwise have a harder time finding jobs. The lifeline of businesses is of course credit and the bridging loan programme supported by MAS continues to provide businesses with credit lines even as the outlook remains uncertain. The low interest rate environment is also helpful as this keeps the cost of borrowing lower for businesses. I would also like to congratulate the National Jobs Council for curating 117,500 opportunities as at end of August.”
“And if we look back, the developments in this was really quite significant. It started with guidance, eventually, restrictions became more serious as the spread of the virus grew in Singapore, culminating in a two-months circuit breaker where many of us remained at home. As a result of all these efforts, although we had a spike in cases, largely from a combination of Singaporeans returning from abroad as well as a spread in the dormitories, fatality rates were kept low and are amongst the lowest in the world. Our testing rates are now amongst the highest as a percentage of the population and we had expanded our medical capacity so that everyone who needed medical attention would be able to get it. At the same time, the economic impact of COVID-19 has been significantly cushioned by the Government. The wide range of measures provided – from jobs support packages for employers, rental reliefs for businesses and supplementary income for both employees and the self-employed – has provided many Singaporean businesses the ability to stay afloat and provided many Singaporeans with money to spend even if their income has dropped. This is important because if businesses shutter, then when the economy recovers, there may be significant gaps and recovery may be stalled. Life is slowly becoming more normal, and while wearing masks has now become part of our lives, most Singaporeans are otherwise returning to work and more and more businesses are opening doors and resuming. Some sectors remain under significant pressure, including travel and tourism, as well as those related to oil and gas.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Motion. It is hard to imagine that when this year started, COVID-19 was still a little known virus in China and it seemed to be largely contained at that time. I looked back at my Facebook page and still saw happy gatherings and get-togethers at the beginning of the year. Barely 10 months later, the world is a different place. Many have lost and continue to lose loved ones to the virus. Globally, the number stands at 38 million infected people and 1.09 million people have died. Global travel has frozen and all across the world, economic contraction is the reality. For those who have not been directly impacted by the virus, livelihoods remain a key concern. Much has been mentioned in this debate about the uneven impact of the virus. And one of the most stark example of this is perhaps the US. The US is the country with the largest number of cases and the largest number of deaths from the virus. Yet, at the same time, US stock market indices continue to make new highs. What this really shows is that there are many companies that continue to thrive even as others in this virus. This is what the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter would have called creative destruction. There are new businesses coming up, they innovate and break the mould even as old ones suffered and get destroyed. The gains in the US markets are largely driven by tech stocks that were not only unaffected by COVID-19, but in fact have thrived in that environment. Against this backdrop, Singapore has done remarkably well in its fight against COVID-19. From early on, a Ministerial Committee was formed which met regularly and coordinated decision making with a focus to contain the virus. Coordinated efforts were taken as the need arose.”
“In the making of medical decisions, the doctors' duty is to inform and give the patient enough information to make the right decision. But ultimately, the patient makes that decision. So, this is the called patient empowerment. And I think this legislation helps in that process. So, for that reason I stand behind it.”
“I note that the Civil Law Act is stated to replace the common law insofar as it is inconsistent but I think it may be helpful if the Minister could clarify how different this in fact is from the existing common law test, say, in Montgomery or Hii Chii Kok in relation to the giving of medical advice. Although I think it is helpful to have this test set out specifically in legislation and also to have specific limbs stating exactly when and how the doctor should give information, to me, I think this is not a revolutionary change but rather a clarification of the common law position. There is always a challenge because in practical terms and I think many of my friends alluded to this. Doctors may get concerned about how much information they need to give and to what extent they have to advise patients of every single available option. In my understanding, case law is quite clear. You do not have to actually inform patients of inconceivable risks and you do not have to give every footnote in the textbook. But I think if there is indeed a concern that defensive medicine is going to develop, then it is necessary to prevent that. Defensive medicine is of course a concern because if doctors prescribe a range of expensive diagnostic tests, most of which do not yield any results and feel compelled to give detailed pros and cons, this is definitely going to raise medical costs for the patients without necessarily giving better outcomes. So, to me, the test put forward by the amendment to the Civil Law Act is a sensible and practical one. In my view, it is largely consistent with the common law and I think it places risk in the right places. So, risk for diagnosis and treatment is largely with doctors.”
“However, if the patient suffers from complications from that surgery even though the doctor took all steps that a reasonable body of medical opinion would support in the course of that surgery, then the doctor would not be liable. The decision for making that surgery, if made by a well-informed patient, would not be the doctor's fault. This was, in fact, the way the current test as we understood it developed. In fact, this development of the test was relatively recent. In 2015, the English Court of Appeal articulated this modified test in a case called Montgomery, where it set out a doctor's duties in relation to giving patients advice was actually to properly inform patients of the treatment options and the risks involved. In 2018, in the Hii Chii Kok case, which I think the Minister mentioned as well, the Singapore Court of Appeal was faced with a similar issue and again, it identified clearly the three different stages of the medical process – diagnosis, medical advice and treatment – and said that a different test ought to apply when we are talking about the giving of medical advice. This is what brings us to where we are today. In the Civil Law Act, what we have now is an amendment proposed specifically to alter the common law test in relation to medical advice. It does not change the common law test in relation to diagnosis or treatment. To me, this amendment is not so revolutionary and in some ways, to me, it looks like it is very consistent with the development of the law, including the developments by the courts in both England and Singapore.”
“This test for medical negligence was commonly known as the Bolam-Bolitho test. Typically, claims against doctors would proceed with parties engaging expert witnesses to assist the court and determine what this reasonable body of medical opinion was in relation to the actions in question. The Bolam test was devised under circumstances where it was assumed the doctor would play the most significant part in all decisions. However, modern medical practice has very sensibly developed to give patients more choices in this process and in particular, for doctors to actually advise patients on treatment options available and the risk of each, while empowering patients to make the decision. This means significantly different considerations ought to apply when a doctor is giving advice as opposed to other matters such as diagnosis or treatment, where the patient may have no say. If a patient is being diagnosed, that is very much in the doctor's hands. If a patient is being treated, that is again in the doctor's hands. But where a decision is being made, that is in fact a joint effort. For example, where a patient has severe knee pain and a knee replacement may be an option, a doctor would likely advise the patient on a range of alternatives from surgery, including other ways of living with and managing the pain. The patient will ultimately make the decision on whether he prefers to go for surgery or deal with one of the other options. If he opts for surgery, then of course the surgical process itself will be entirely in the doctor's hands. The doctor would then be required to comply with the required test set out in "Bolam" to carry out that surgery.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. I declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer whose law firm advises on medical negligence cases. I think many of the earlier speakers had focused on the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill. I will discuss a little bit about the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill. The Civil Law Act is an old piece of legislation dating to 1909 and it provides rules covering a very wide range of discrete civil law issues that were not otherwise clear in the common law or in the legislation. This includes provisions giving the Courts power to administer equity and law at the same time, rules on the calculation of limitation periods for actions, administration of insolvent estates, rules on enforceability of gaming contracts, assessment of damages and contracts by minors. Each of these provisions addresses specific matters that were live issues at the time of legislation but have since become part of the rubric of our laws, co-existing with the other existing rules. Today, a very specific rule relating to the test for issuing medical advice is joining this tapestry of other rules that form part of the Civil Law Act. In the slightly older days when I was studying law in school, the classic "Bolam" test applied to every stage of the medical process, whether it was diagnosis, giving advice or treatment. This test was first articulated in the English case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee in 1957. This was essentially a test that if the doctor's actions were supported by a reasonable body of medical opinion, he would not be liable. This was subsequently modified by a test called Bolitho, which said a doctor's decision must also be logically arrived at.”
“I thank the Minister for her explanation which I think clearly shows this is not a widespread problem. But in certain BTOs I have had in my estate, Woodland Glen is one of them. There are about 888 units and we have had more than 200 complaints so far on defects; most of which HDB is trying to rectify but HDB has no recourse against the original developer legally. So, I was just wondering whether HDB or MND has a way of keeping track of maybe individual developers that have significant issues like this, where more than a quarter of the units will have defects that have come up later. And these are not things to do with wear and tear; it is like windows panes melting, toilet seats breaking. So, it just sounds like quality is bad or workmanship is bad.”
“For most practitioners, we would agree that the Tribunal always have powers to make such orders but this was never expressly set out in the legislation. There was some debate on whether tribunals may have the power and to what extent that powers would extend to making confidentiality a part of the arbitration. So, by making this amendment to section 12 of the International Arbitration Act – which is really a section that spells out the Tribunal's powers – what it now provides specifically is that the Tribunal has such powers to make orders to protect confidentiality in an arbitration. Of course, the scope of this obligation is not defined precisely but this is necessary because exactly what documents are covered by it, which are already out in the public domain, which are not – these are all matters for that Tribunal to decide. But at least the one debate that will be off the table is whether or not the Tribunal has these powers. The other benefit of putting it in this section of the International Arbitration Act is that the Court will also now have the power to make an order where a Tribunal is not able to so this is also, I think, necessary as a catch all provision because given the speed with which one has to move if you want to protect confidentiality. If the Tribunal is not in place, for example, it may be necessary to go to the Courts to get such an order. I support and welcome both of these amendments. I think they both solve practical problems that practitioners encounter and it is a tidy solution. I would also add, in my concluding remarks, that I also agree with the other four proposals the Ministry had put forward in the consultation and hope that these too can be implemented in due course. Each of these are good solutions to practical problems. 3.15 pm”
“For example, if there are multiple Respondents, each separately represented and with different views on the same issue, there may be deadlock. What these rules provide for is the default appointment of arbitrators in such situations, which is eminently sensible. It requires parties to name arbitrators at specific points in the process as well. So, this also reduces the chance that the appointment of arbitrators will be used as a way to delay proceedings. Now, the core of arbitration is always party autonomy and party autonomy is still protected here because if parties have agreed on their own default mechanism where agreement cannot be reached, that should still prevail. What this amendment deals with such a situation where parties did not really provide the mechanism but would not have wanted deadlock either. So, what this provides is really a process by which this deadlock can be broken and the arbitration process can be moved smoothly along, even where parties or whether there are three or more parties who cannot agree on the arbitrator. The second amendment also deals with another vexed issue and this is confidentiality Confidentiality obligations are common in arbitration proceedings. This is also one of the main attractions of arbitration for many parties as they would prefer to settle disputes out of the public eye. However, the protection of confidentiality is sometimes more difficult because the most common remedy for breach of confidentiality is to get an injunction to prevent dissemination of the information. This would only be available if the information is not already in the public domain. Thus, speed is of the essence if one wishes to get injunctive relief to protect confidentiality of matters subject to arbitration.”
“Mr Speaker, I support this Motion. I declare my interest as a dispute resolution lawyer who practises international arbitration. Between June and August last year, MinLaw proposed several amendments to the International Arbitration Act for public consultations. Six areas were put out for public consultation and this Bill implements two of them. The first amendment is to provide for a default mode of appointment for arbitrators in multi-party arbitrations. Generally, when an agreement is entered into parties would usually include standard arbitration clauses in those agreements. These clauses would typically provide for tribunals consisting of a sole arbitrator, or sometimes three arbitrators. Where there are three arbitrators to be appointed, the usual method is for the Claimant to appoint one, the Respondent to appoint one and for the two appointed arbitrators to agree on a third. These are general practices, of course, specific clauses may vary. There is typically also a deadlock mechanism. If the two party appointed arbitrators cannot agree on the third, namely that it will be appointed by some third party, usually institution appointed under the arbitration agreement. This could be ICC, for example. Where problems arise is if there are more than two adverse parties in an arbitration and all are separately represented. I think the Minister highlighted several examples in his speech. And this is increasingly common in the context of multi-party agreements or in a situation where different agreements are consolidated because we now have rules permitting consolidation of arbitrations. So, in this scenario where you have three parties or more, there is a greater likelihood that parties will not be able to agree upon "party appointed" arbitrators.”
“The second point that I would also like to make is, in fact, these provisions have been so well received that I have had feedback that perhaps the Companies Act should be amended to allow these alternative meeting arrangements to stay in place indefinitely. But this is for the Ministry's consideration.”
“I think in many ways, Assessors will have to exercise a lot of discretion on how they are going to allocate these additional costs. If there are any guidelines for Assessors or adjudicators where they should bear in mind, this may be helpful especially in a very prescriptive industry like construction. The second area I would like to address is clause 12, which relates to Alternative Arrangements for Meetings. Generally, I have had very good feedback on the provision for these alternative arrangements. It basically allows AGMs and Board meetings to be held virtually. The feedback, of course I had, was that the hard deadline that was initially in place made it difficult for companies to plan for AGMs that may take place longer, especially where they need sometime in advance to call AGMs; and sometimes AGMs get adjourned. So, it was not clear the legislation would continue to apply to adjourned meetings. I think it was very helpful the Minister clarified that the legislation is now going to be in place until June next year which gives a good long window of time. On this point, I have two suggestions. The legislation itself gives the Minister discretion to decide how long or short a time frame this legislation is going to be in place for; this amended proceedings. And I think at the very least three months advance notice would be helpful, a longer period would be even better. In this regard, there is actually no harm in erring in the side of caution and giving a longer period because I think there is not much downside – even if the COVID situation is better – there is no harm if the virtual meeting provisions are still in place and meetings can go on virtually.”
“While the current legislation gives contractors moratorium for liabilities arising from delays caused by COVID-19, I expect that now works are gradually resuming, parties will want to be clear that they will be able to recover payment for works, as well as benefit from any necessary COVID-19 reliefs granted by the Act. Clause 15 clarifies the moratorium would apply to claims brought under SOPA and clauses 16 and 17 would allow the contract to be modified in a manner that is "just and equitable." And I acknowledge that this is the framework that has been used by Assessors dealing with all claims affected by COVID-19. I think this also harmonises the two Acts by giving adjudicators the same powers as Assessors which makes eminent sense, so two processes are not needed, but this also gives a lot of flexibility to Assessors and adjudicators in modifying the contract, which is not very common in the construction industry, and this may create a lot of legal uncertainties, because there are many, many ways in which contracts may be affected by COVID-19. The balance that Assessors and adjudicators would need to take is want to make sure that parties are able to perform or enforce bargains they believed they made, but not be penalised by the effect of the moratorium. The additional time and costs needed for performance of these contracts would also need to be carefully considered because it is not always easy to determine where these should fall, and this is almost always what construction contracts try to do too – place responsibility for losses or delays on one person or the other. For example, if a project has been delayed for six months and has to be restarted, there will be costs to remobilised, there will be shortages of manpower, higher costs for hiring.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer who practices both construction and corporate dispute resolution. I will be commenting on these two areas on the Bill. The first section I would like to address is clauses 15 to 17 of the Bill, which modifies some of the procedures relating to the Security of Payment Act or SOPA. The construction industry has been one of those hard hit by the COVID-19 crisis. Generally, construction contracts are very prescriptive with parties having specific obligations to perform certain works within specific time frames. Two things are generally of critical importance: time and money. One of the biggest problems contractors faced, is that if there are delays or issues in a construction project, payment may be withheld by the paying party. This can be between developer and main contractor or between contractors and their own sub-contractors. Dispute resolution through courts or arbitration may take time. It was a deal with this process that the Security of Payments Act system was set up, which generally provided a fast way for claimants to recover payments due before full resolution of all disputes. These process requires both the claimants and respondents to adhere to strict timelines to file claims and responses and the adjudication would give a quick decision. This process has significantly reduced the time and costs of resolving construction disputes and many disputes would not proceed to full hearing after that. The COVID-19 situation has hit this industry hard and works in many places had to be stopped.”
“Studies within the economics profession have repeatedly shown that in almost every instance, the unemployment impact is either very minimal or statistically insignificant such that it cannot be detected in a regular statistical test. So, I should be clear that when I talk about the absence of an unemployment effect, I am not using theory to make this argument. It is based on empirical evidence which has been backed by studies from countries all over the world, not just in high-income countries.”
“I have two clarifications for the Member. First, what is the level of Minimum Wage that the Member proposes is appropriate for Singapore? Second, is the Member aware of any countries with a Minimum Wage that has a lower unemployment rate than Singapore? Because I think that would be a case study for us. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you. Let me clarify two things. The first is what is the appropriate level of the Minimum Wage. I should be clear. I do not know and that is exactly why what we need is a national commission to understand this and to study this. That would be what I would argue that we should have, if I were to ask for a practical policy proposal. We should have an independent panel. In fact, that panel should continue to exist year after year after that Minimum Wage policy is rolled out because that would allow us to continually evaluate whether the level of the Minimum Wage is appropriate. It should be independent. It should be staffed by university professors as well as representatives from both the unions and firms. It should be our famous tripartite arrangements. It should be filled with these people to better understand what is a good level and to adjust. We are a pragmatic country, a pragmatic policy-making nation, and so we can adjust accordingly. As for countries with different levels of unemployment, I think it is imperative for me to clarify that we do not want to be comparing raw unemployment rates across countries willy-nilly. But what I will say is this – the basis for me to argue that Minimum Wage has a very limited impact on unemployment is premised on reams and reams of studies. It is not my own.”
“What this basically means is that, on the one hand, MOM as the regulator will manage the access to work passes, rights to employ more foreigners and so on, if they are deemed not to be fair to Singaporeans; but at the same time, if legislation is there to give the individual aggrieved recourse, I think that would also make Singaporeans feel they have had a fairer hearing. They will know that my specific case was considered, my grievance was considered, and yes, there was an outcome. I think this is an important process that will add to the feeling of fairness. Mr Speaker, as a country, we have come a very long way and the three principles that have been important for this are openness, equality and fairness. I have laid out three suggestions that I think would help in the fairness aspect which is ultimately important for us to get support for the Government. 2.03 pm”
“If a skilled vocational person is able to add value, they should be able to command a higher salary than graduates. In most developed countries, vocational pay is higher. The implication for this, of course, is that when you pay for service, you have to pay more as well. But I think if you are talking about progressing fairly, this will be one area that probably requires more careful study. The third area is what I would call, a workplace discrimination. And here we have had very longstanding debates taking place about whether or not Singaporeans are being discriminated in their workplace. And I think MOM has a very clever lever at the moment. The current lever is that if an employer is deemed to be discriminating against Singaporeans, their access to foreign labour is cut or reduced. This, of course, is perfectly logical; it is a very effective tool. But the group of people who are left dissatisfied with this process are the people who feel they are victims of the discrimination, because they themselves have no recourse. MOM may take action against the company, if it deems the company is not acting fairly, but the individual who feels he may have lost his job does not feel vindicated. It is here that I think there isroom for legislation on workplace discrimination. I would also add that workplace discrimination legislation has had a mixed history in different countries. In some places because of anti-discrimination legislation, people actually get more afraid to hire from that discriminated community. Any anti-discrimination legislation has to be careful, but I think if the focus of discrimination is on Singaporeans and foreigners, I think it will be a line that we will be able to maintain.”
“It has been made significantly more affordable but it is still more expensive than Primary school. It is not effectively free. And those who can afford it or are deemed to be able to afford it, will have to pay. The result of this is that pre-school enrolment, while getting better, is still not universal. Standards are variable and parents sometimes have a perception that some pre-schools are significantly better than others and, therefore, there are different starting points. I acknowledge that the socialising of pre-school to try and make it equally accessible, free and, potentially, even compulsory, will be significantly more than Primary school. So, this is a big prize to get the item and this is something that we should focus on if the Budget allows it. These are things we can do, now that we are a richer country. But, again, it has to be balanced against other priorities. So, this is the pre-school level, the very early starting point. The second area where we could put a bit more focus on is, once you move to the Secondary level, people diverge between vocational paths and more academic paths. I agree with the focus of the Ministry that different pathways to success should be there and all pathways should lead to success. But one area where there is significant discrepancy is the salaries that come out from the vocational path and the academic path. Germany is a country in Europe which has the fewest number of graduates per capita but it also has one of the highest GDP per capita. That is because vocational jobs in Germany pay very well. So, I think it is important for us to look into why there is discrepancy between vocational pay as compared to the pay of graduates. This is not something that is natural.”
“And, certainly, when it comes to radicalism and so on, usually, most of our leads come from the community itself, the rehabilitation takes place through the community and everyone sees themselves as part of the same project. So, this is a very important part of equality and fairness. But this is not natural. This requires at least gentle legislation to put people together and then people can form bonds. So, yes, we can explore this, but it is something that we should be slow to let go. But there are three things that I do think we can change and these are suggestions along the way. So, when I talk about fairness, what fairness really means is that wherever you are, you should have a fair shot. John Rawls, in his Theory of Justice, said that for any society, the ideal benchmark of fairness is you decide and structure the society without knowing where you will be, so that, wherever you are, you will feel this is a fair society. That is a very useful test. I think, in Singapore, it should be wherever you are, rich, poor, minority, of whatever ethnic group, you should feel you have a fair shot at life. There are three areas we could look at to improve. One area is pre-schools. I had mentioned very early on, even before I became a father, that I actually thought it was important to socialise pre-school course as well. In our early years of Independence, the Pioneer Generation realised that education was an important leveller. So, Primary education was made free and compulsory. Everyone had to go in for Primary school. This helped one generation. At that time, in Primary school, that was where you learn to read and write. But now, what has happened is that more and more people are starting out at pre-school. And pre-school is not compulsory.”
“This was about six or seven years ago at a time when ISIS was brewing as a problem for the world. At that time, Singapore was also concerned about this. But my European counterpart was asking me, "How do you deal with this issue of returning fighters? You have a Muslim population that is about the same size as ours but you do not seem to have many people going to the Middle East to fight, whereas we have..." at that time, he said, "...more than a hundred people who were going and there is not much we could do about them because people are free to travel". At that time, he was actually asking us about our Internal Security Act and he thought that that was the main reason we did not have so many people going there to fight. We had a very interesting conversation because I asked him a little bit more about the Middle East. He said that the Muslim community was about the same size in our two countries. So, I asked him, "You said many of them were going to fight. But how well integrated is your Muslim community with the rest?" He said, "They are not discriminated. They can do whatever they want. But they all like to live together." Then I also asked after that, "Do you have any of them in parliament?" and he mentioned "No, they are not in parliament. There is nothing stopping them. But, yes, they do not run, so they are not in parliament." So, they have a very laissez faire approach to it. But the outcome of that laissez faire approach was that it looked like you had a community that was not well integrated, not well represented and, therefore, felt like an outsider, whereas one of the things about our community is that all the different communities are very well integrated.”
“It is just that those differences were less. But one big problem with that conception of equality was that the human desire to do your best to achieve was significantly dampened. And George Orwell and many other commentators observed that the only way you could have complete equality of outcome is in a totalitarian state and that was undesirable because, ultimately, the state has to take control of everything, tell people what to do and everyone one outcome. So, where we are after the Cold War is that everyone more or less said, okay, equality of opportunity is the way to go. But, of course, 20 years down, we realised that equality of opportunity also has problems. One of the biggest problems is the entrenchment of privilege. This is why I think governments still have a role to play to ensure that the playing field remains fair and that everyone will still have a chance to do well, even if we focus on equality of opportunity. This actually brings me to my point on fairness, which is the third pillar in what I think is important. Fairness is something which Singapore has worked very hard to achieve. One policy that I commend and which I think we should be very slow to release on is actually equality for the different races and religions. This is something that we enshrine in our Constitution and with express policies to promote. Some of these include racial quotas in HDB blocks as well as the GRC system that ensures minority representation in Parliament. Earlier in the debate, Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned we should relook at these. I am happy. It is okay to relook at these policies. But I would firmly say that I think these policies are important. Let me share a conversation I had with a politician from a European country.”
“Other sectors not mentioned include areas like manufacturing. But many of these areas grew on the back of our being open and allowing people to come in and build a base here. I am also heartened that, during this difficult time, Singapore remains open. I think the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech yesterday that EDB has a longer pipeline of projects this year than last year, including companies looking to develop treatments for COVID-19. This is good news for Singaporeans and jobs. But in order to benefit from this, we have to remain open. The second theme though is equality. Equality is something that I think every society strives for. But equality has many different meanings. During the Cold War, there were two very different conceptions of equality. On the one hand, you can say the US perhaps epitomises it. It talked very heavily about equality of opportunity – whoever you are, wherever you are, you must have a chance to succeed. But equality of opportunity almost always creates inequality of outcomes. You cannot run away from that. If everyone is given the same chance, some people will do better than others; the outcomes will be different. Why do they do better? There can be many reasons. It can be hard work, it can be luck. Or it can also be privilege – you had a better starting position. But if you focus on giving everyone equal opportunities, your outcomes will not be equal. The second side, you might say, is the ideal of communism – equality of outcome. So, the ideal world, in that conception, was that whatever you do, it did not matter. As long as you did your best, everyone will get the same outcome. But no society has been able to achieve that. Even in the more strongly socialist countries, outcomes were still different.”
“As Singapore grew as a trading port, as part of a bigger global empire, more and more people moved here, including from the Malay peninsular, China and India, where many of our ancestors are from. So, it was, in fact, Singapore's openness from inception that brought many of us here. At the time of Independence, Singapore had a choice. Many countries that won independence from colonial masters sometimes cut roots altogether. They said "We want nothing more to do with the rest of the world. We will do everything ourselves". Singapore did not. Singapore went a different way. We kept it open to the world. We did not burn bridges with our colonial masters. In fact, we maintained the relationship. The British continued to provide for our defence for some years after our Independence. We played a part in the Commonwealth, we joined international organisations. We brought new industries and new businesses here and this is what actually helped Singapore grow during the early years. In the earlier speeches, Minister Ong Ye Kung talked about the financial sector – one area where many Singaporeans are feeling angst about foreigners taking their jobs. But he highlighted that this sector really started again as an entrepreneurial venture in a little over 50 years ago when Singapore decided to open up as a currency trading hub. This slowly evolved into having more and more high-quality jobs here and we now have a sector that employs 170,000 people, of which 70% are Singaporeans. Our senior management, I think, could do better but the numbers still stand at 44% Singaporean and these are jobs that would not have been here if we were not open. Yesterday, in his speech, Prime Minister Lee talked about many sectors, including oil and gas and pharmaceuticals.”
“This is not meant to be a criticism of the UK but just to show how difficult it is to achieve growth once you have become a developed nation and the UK has been maintaining its GDP for the last 14 years but it has been difficult to achieve growth. So, if you compare that as the benchmark, I think the current term of government has done incredibly well. It has grown GDP from a high benchmark to an even higher benchmark. This is why, in many ways, we are in no-man's land. There is an old saying in Tamil which goes: “இக்கரைக்கு அக்கரை பச்சை”. In English, you will be familiar with this. It means, “The grass is greener on the other side”. So, for many of us, we may look at other developed countries and think we are inferior and then say, "Look, we have to replicate them". But I think this sometimes understates how good things are over here. This is not to say we are perfect and this is not to say we cannot learn. We have to always learn, we always have to look outwards. But at the same time, we also cannot let go of things that have worked for us and which we have been doing right. In this speech, I want to touch on three themes that I think are important for this. The first is openness; the second, equality; and the third is fairness. The first topic I am touching on is openness. Openness has been one of the most important themes for Singapore's economy since its founding. When the British set up Singapore and planted their flag in Singapore about 200 years ago, the population was less than 1,000. But at that time, Raffles saw Singapore as a place where the region and perhaps even larger parts of the world could come to trade.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Singapore’s journey in the last 60 years has been remarkable. At the time of our Independence, we were very much a developing country. In 1960, our GDP per capita was US$449. By 1990, at the time Mr Lee Kuan Yew handed over to Mr Goh Chok Tong, it had risen to US$11,862 per capita. If we look at the numbers, it is a remarkable growth. The multiple is more than 25 times. So, of course, the growth that that generation experienced would have been remarkable. By 2006, when Mr Goh Chok Tong handed over, GDP per capita had risen to US$33,769. This, again, by any standard, is a big number. But in proportion, it is three times the growth. This clearly put us very much amongst the First World nations. In 2019, when the last figures were available from the World Bank, the GDP stood at around US$65,233 – again, a very big number, a little under double from 2006. Singapore has been criticised for focusing too much on GDP. But I think this is a luxury we have after we have achieved that growth, a luxury that has given us many opportunities. For comparison, if we compare these figures to, say, the UK – which was also not a very successful country and was our former colonial masters – we actually see how remarkable this achievement is. In 1960, the UK’s GDP per capita was about US$1,398, about three times ours. In 1990, the same second timeframe, it was US$19,095, still more than 60% higher than ours – no longer triple but still significantly more. In 2006, its GDP was about US$44,600, again, higher than ours, but only about 25% higher. As of last year, the UK’s GDP per capita was $42,300, according to the World Bank figures, and this is actually slightly lower than it was in 2006, and, now, 30% below ours.”
“Mr Speaker, in Tamil, please. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am happy to speak in support of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's election as Speaker. We both entered politics at the same time in 2011. Since then, Mr Tan has held different responsibilities, including as Minister for Manpower and Minister for Social and Family Development. Mr Tan, you are a man with a big heart. You always try to engage people. Even where some may disagree with you, you talk to them. You are active on social media and regularly engage people and share stories about your life and your thoughts on matters. As Speaker of the House, you have brought that same spirit here. You have tried to make parliamentary business interesting to members of the public by explaining the rules and their purpose in an interesting way. This term of Parliament will see us charting the course through the COVID-19 crisis. It will be important for our people to understand the issues and what is being done to manage the situation. I believe you will play your part to manage the debates fairly and find creative ways to keep the public engaged in the matters in this House. Mr Tan, my congratulations once again to you. Thank you. [Applause.] 6.29 pm”
“Many of our friends in other countries are facing unprecedented hardship and suffering, including being unable to find hospital beds and treatment when they need it and watching loved ones die without being able to be with them in their final moments or attend their funerals. In Singapore, we have faced pain too. Although we have a large number of cases, because we have managed the situation, our death rate from COVID-19 is one of the lowest in the world. Now people’s main concern is their livelihoods, and that is exactly what this Budget addresses. For those who own businesses, there is support for payroll, relief from rental and financing available. For individuals who have lost jobs and income, there is financial assistance available as well as training to get new jobs. The aim is to help people get back on their feet and get their livelihoods back. This Budget gives us "fortitude" to face the challenges ahead by helping to relieve the main things that cause us fear. Mr Speaker, I support this Budget.”
“There is also significant investment in job creation and training opportunities, with a bold plan to create 100,000 jobs and the team is already in place headed by Senior Minister Tharman to look into this very difficult project. These are exactly what we need during these difficult times. All this spending comes with a price tag, and in this case, we will, for the first time in our history, be dipping into our reserves to the tune of around $50 billion. This is significant, but it is also clear that this is not a decision the Government is taking lightly. Based on what we know from MOF’s public data, the reserves managed by MAS are around $400 billion and Temasek has more than $300 billion on its balance sheet. The full figure is, of course, bigger than this. Against this backdrop, a one off draw-down of $50 billion to deal with what is probably the biggest financial crisis since our Independence is probably justified. We must however be mindful that these reserves built up since our Independence are our “Golden Goose”, and the more we spend of the reserves, the less the net investment income will be. The last time we drew down on these reserves was during the 2008/2009 Global Financial Crisis. Back then we had a "V" shape recovery and the Government was able to pay back the draw-down within a year. I do not expect the Government to be able to do so this time. Yet, given the extraordinary situation we are in, I think this expenditure is well justified. I support this Budget. Mr Speaker, I’ll continue in Tamil. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This is a time of unprecedented challenges for the world from COVID-19.”
“Now, the time has come to slowly get back on our feet and move and this Budget again provides much needed lubrication to help this process. For businesses, the three main concerns are usually payroll, rental and financing. This Budget has provisions for all three. In relation to payroll, the extension of the Jobs Support Scheme means that many employers, particularly those in troubled sectors like aviation, will continue to get significant payroll support for their staff, up to 75% through to August. Rental waivers of two to four months will be enjoyed by many businesses, the load shared between landlords and the Government. Landlords in turn can get relief from their own mortgage obligations if they need it. Finally, for many businesses, credit is the lifeblood and the previous Budgets had provided Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and Enterprise Financing Scheme, both of which provided access to credit. These well thought through schemes mitigate the three greatest concerns businesses will have and will, hopefully, give them fortitude to get up and get back in the game. For individuals, particularly those who have lost jobs or income, there is also significant help. The biggest concern for individuals who are out of work is "Will we get more income? And when will we get our next job?" This Budget provides for both apart from those with high incomes or higher value properties. Whether you are self-employed or an employee, if you have lost 30% or more of your income, there will be relief. In addition to this, payments to families from Care and Support packages in previous Budgets will continue and this will help households meet expenses.”
“Air travel has all but frozen. The Causeway, which used to see a little under half a million people a day cross up and down, is also quiet, allowing only vehicles with essential supplies coming through. The largest number of COVID-19 cases now is in America, which also has an added crisis as the tragic death of George Lloyd has triggered a “Black Lives Matter” with large numbers of people on the street. The Singapore Government’s approach in this virus has been nimble. We did not create this crisis, but we have to deal with the fallout. We prioritised the saving of lives with a rigorous system of public messaging, contact tracing, quarantine and the expansion of medical resources. Although we have one of the largest numbers of cases in Asia, which is partly because we have done very aggressive testing, we have managed to keep our fatality rates low because our medical capacity is adequate to provide for all who need it. The Ministerial Task Force has communicated regularly, acted decisively and flexibly, staying calm and always having a clear plan for the situation. This Budget, the Fortitude Budget, is the latest additional spending the Government needs and I whole-heartedly support this. Fortitude means courage in the face of adversity and that is exactly what Singapore needs to get back on its feet. The earlier Budgets, particularly the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets, helped businesses stay afloat during a time when Singapore and much of the world was frozen. Our people retained jobs even though many were staying at home and were not able to work. Those who were not so fortunate and lost jobs or income received immediate support. This helped our people have resilience and solidarity.”
“Mr Speaker, when we started this financial year, we had a long debate over the Unity Budget, which was the largest Budget in Singapore’s history, amounting to around $105 billion. This Budget provided what seemed to be a very generous sum of $5 billion to deal with the effects of COVID-19. At this time, the number of cases in Singapore was less than 200 and the epicentre of the crisis was still very much in China, with the largest number of cases. Within a month, the situation changed dramatically, as COVID-19 spread around the world, and became particularly rampant in Europe and the US, the number of cases in Singapore started spiking as well as we had more people return from overseas. The Government moved swiftly and Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced the Resilience Budget, which was what we needed in light of the worsening situation and the additional restrictions that the Government had to put in place to reduce the spread of the virus. As the number of cases continued to grow with more and more Singaporeans returning home, the danger of wide community spread emerged and the Government decided to implement the circuit breaker. To tide over the circuit breaker, Deputy Prime Minister announced a third Budget, the Solidarity Budget – solidarity because most Singaporeans, apart from our essential workers, stayed at home to prevent this crisis spreading. Workplaces and schools closed and people tried to work from home while students engaged in home-based learning. With the circuit breaker coming to an end, and with Singapore cautiously opening up, this latest Budget, is aptly named "Fortitude" and it aims to help get us moving once again in a very uncertain and volatile world. Even as we have this debate today, the world is a different place.”
“Indeed, personally, my family will also be going through all of this. However, we must understand that if we all do our part and get this right, the pain may be temporary and, after one month, we may be able to ease the restrictions a little. On the other hand, if it gets worse, our country may have no choice but to move towards a total lockdown like many other countries have if the spread of the disease becomes widespread. For this to work, we must all do our part. 4.05 pm”
“So, the main aim of the Government is to cushion the financial and economic impact in the next month for a very large part of the country. And if we all do our part, this will, hopefully, not be too long drawn. Mr Speaker, a few words in Tamil. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This is probably one of the most difficult challenges we have faced as a country since our Independence. In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, we have had to take measures that will make many parts of our economy ground to a halt. For those of you working in areas like aviation, tourism, food and beverage or driving Grab or taxis, you will likely have seen your income drop significantly. If you have not sought help already, do drop by your Community Centres where the assistance schemes are being administered for those economically impacted by these measures. Likewise, do let your family and friends who have been affected know as well. You will also realise that the latest outbreak has taken place in workers’ dormitories and some 20,000 workers have now been quarantined. For those whose businesses may be affected by the crunch in workers, please understand that measures are being taken to keep the workers in dormitories safe as well. The next one month will be difficult, both economically and emotionally for all of us. Many of us will feel the economic pinch, either directly or indirectly, as work is disrupted on a large scale. Our children are going to be at home as well, and many parents will feel the challenge of having to assist with home-based learning for their children while they themselves try to work from home as well. At the same time, we will not be able to visit extended family members who do not live with us.”
“In these times of great crisis, we sometimes see the best in people. One of our local hawkers in the Admiralty area, Ah Lock, told me he intended to stay open and to provide free meals for needy residents. This was both to help those in need as well as to keep his workers employed. It is definitely not going to be rosy for him financially, but he feels that this is the right thing to do. Another person who has actually come out in an extraordinary way was my local provision shop owner in the Vista Point Market. At that time when DORSCON Orange was announced and many places were running out of rice, he carried on with an initiative to give out about 2,000 kg of brown rice to those who needed it. This was an initiative that he came up with before COVID-19 and which he carried through. And it is little efforts like this that show the common humanity in all of us that no matter what we are running through, there is still something we can do for other people. In many of the efforts that have come forward to distribute masks, volunteers have come forward to help, the hand sanitiser distribution likewise. And every time we asked for help, people come forward to help. Now, as we go forward, the next biggest help we need to ask from everyone is to stay at home, look after your health and look after the health of your loved ones. The Budget provides support for many of the most difficult pain points we will face in this coming month. Employers were concerned about wages to be paid to their workers. There is going to be substantial support for that, particularly for the large base of workers. Businesses were concerned about rentals. There is going to be support for that as well.”
“Just yesterday, there were a 120 new cases, the majority being locally transmitted. Yet, new clusters were found in workers' dormitories. So, there is yet another flank that has opened up. Our contact tracing teams are working incredibly hard. And while there is community spread, this is not yet widespread. The circuit breaker is our last chance to prevent going where many other countries have gone. So, there is a little bit of pain for all of us to put up with in the month ahead. And in that respect, I think the Solidarity Budget is welcome. But it also tells us the steep price we have to pay for these measures. It is just under $6 billion and a further addition to the Budget and this is the price we pay for going on circuit breaker mode for one month. If things turn the corner, then we may face a better future after that. If not, especially if people do not take the circuit breaker measures seriously, then we may end up in a much more dire situation and maybe even deeper drawdowns may have to be made. Like many colleagues, I also dropped by the community centres where the temporary relief schemes were being administered and spoke to the residents there to find out how they were coping, and these were many of the people who have been affected by the COVID-19 crisis. These include Grab and taxi drivers, retail assistants and promoters, workers in the entertainment industry and food and beverage industry. Many, particularly the vulnerable ones who were not on full-time contracts, had their hours or working times reduced. All of them were clearly in pain. One of the things that struck me was that, under their pain, were resilience and gratitude. They understood the measures were necessary and were grateful for the help provided to ride through the storm.”
“Although the Resilience Budget was only two weeks ago, the latest restrictive measures, the circuit breakers that have been announced, made even those measures seem like indulgent luxuries. Now, with the latest measures, we will no longer be able to eat out or gather for any reasons outside of work. The only exception to this are those providing essential services. For the rest of us, the message is clear: stay home as much as possible. That is the best contribution that we can make. In my own family, my wife, my daughter and I are all going to be at home together for a long time. But I think this is the message that we all have to understand and live with. It is going to be a different world for us, but only for one month, if we do things right. All these strict controls and measures mean that the social norms will change as well. It will no longer be socially acceptable to meet up with friends outside of work and even meeting extended family members is not encouraged. So, what this means is we have to find new ways to connect with people who are close and dear to us. Most Singaporeans fully understand the need for these measures. On Sunday, I walked around to just talk to a few of the hawkers in our area to find out how many of them would be operating. And most of them said they would continue to operate but probably for shorter hours. So, please, continue to get your daily necessities that you need from them. The markets and supermarkets will remain open, so there is no need for panic buying, but please make fewer trips and just go there to buy what you need and then go back. One of the things that I think we all have to be conscious about is that the situation is, indeed, very serious.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Budget. The situation in relation to COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving one. We get daily reports of the numbers of cases being detected, both in Singapore and around the world. Even if we take a snapshot of the situation each time we debated this Budget, we see a different world. When the original Budget Statement was announced in February and debated in March, Singapore had just over 100 cases. However, at least locally, we looked like we have turned a corner. At the time when I made my speech, there were more people making recoveries and only a small number of additional cases. At the same time, the situation in China appeared to be getting under control. And at that time, there was the beginning of cases starting in other parts of the world and there were some concerns that we may have a second wave. The Budget provided for what seemed to be a very generous provision of $6.4 billion to deal with the impact of COVID-19. Barely a few weeks later, the world had changed. There was a surge of cases all around the world and the second wave of COVID-19 became very real as the numbers of locally transmitted cases began to rise. This led to additional restrictive measures being implemented to prevent the spread and a further Resilience Budget being announced on 26 March 2020 to help mitigate the impact of these further measures. The additional restrictions, already felt serious at that time, included the closing of bars and nightclubs, prohibiting large gatherings of more than 250 people, and many religious gatherings were also called off around that time. Safe distancing measures were also put into place, workplaces were required to implement Business Continuity Plans – all of these were intended to help us carry on with life.”
“Chairman. One of the points I mentioned was I think POFMA is very useful in handling online falsehoods. But, I think in the COVID-19 situation, one of the things we realised, a lot of the falsehoods spread through messaging apps such as WhatsApp for which the Correction Orders in POFMA would not work effectively. So, is there anything else we can do about that? Either future legislation or what I had suggested was, better education of the population.”
“Of course, more legislation is one solution but I would be interested to know if the Government is taking any steps help individuals themselves become safe, informed and more discerning online.”
“Digitisation is all around us, making our life simpler and more convenient. As a Smart Government, numerous Government services are now available online and on smartphone apps. And everything from taxes to parking payments can be done with a few clicks on one's phone. Other services like banking, credit card bill payments and even food delivery can be done in the comfort of one's armchair. However, the darker side of information is that misinformation is also freely sent and communicated, through social media and messaging tools such as WhatsApp. There have been numerous examples of this, the most recent being COVID-19 outbreak which my colleagues, Mr Ong Teng Koon, Mr Cedric Foo and Mr Mohamed Irshad have elaborated on. Another area of concern is scams, which really target more vulnerable residents. I, myself, have been subject to a phone call from an Australian phone number claiming to be from Singtel's technical staff. I happened to be at my computer and having attended all the grassroots sessions on scams, quickly googled Singtel scams and discovered that this was actually a well-documented scam and stopped that call. In fact, I have personally become so skeptical that if someone calls me telling me they represent my bank, I will usually say I will call the bank myself, rather than reveal any personal data. However, many others may be more trusting and it is the trusting who get exploited by these scams. There is legislation such as POFMA, that can help the Government take action against online fake news. But, this has its limitations, particularly in the context of: one, fake news that spreads through messaging services rather than online and two, scams which can take advantage of people's trusting nature.”