Yaacob Ibrahim
Singapore
“Our museums can do more to have spaces that touch on the subject of precolonial history and to give people access to the archeological finds. At the same time, acknowledging how that history has impinged on our own history and the myriad strands of diversity of ideas, lifestyle, food, religions that have come together to enrich our own ex…”
“For instance, SingPost invested in a $45-million mail sorting machine that has automated 95% of the mail sorting process. To make it easier for its postmen to deliver mail, SingPost has also introduced more delivery vehicles, such as three-wheel scooters and customised mail delivery trolleys.”
“With cyber threats growing globally, this Bill is timely to empower CSA to safeguard essential services from disruptions by cyberattacks, prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents, and to establish a licensing framework to improve the credibility of cybersecurity services in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.”
“Our postal rates continue to be among the lowest among economies, such as the United States, Hong Kong and Norway. For parcel delivery, which does not require a licence from IMDA, it is fully open and competitive, and many local and international players provide services in Singapore today.”
“Factually aims to clarify widespread or common misperceptions of Government policy or incorrect assertions on matters of public concern that can harm Singapore's social fabric. Over the years, the site has addressed inaccurate assertions about various matters, such as housing, the economy and finance.”
“The amendment ensures that IMDA's regulatory framework for the deployment of telecoms cables stays relevant as copper cables are increasingly being phased out and replaced by optical fibre cables.”
The complete record
Every one of 236 lines we hold for Yaacob Ibrahim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“I am heartened by the responses of Singaporeans towards those at the frontline in this challenge. But can this be our way of life when all of this is over? The kindness and generosity we have shown to our frontline workers should be something history will remember us not just for this moment in our history but for defining who we are as a people. The dignity of every worker, no matter their occupation and station in life, must forever be maintained and cherished by all of us. Let us show to the world that these attitudes and behaviours are not a flash in the pan, but an integral part of our way of life. This is the legacy I hope we can bestow on succeeding generations that, out of this moment in our history, our better half triumphed over the other half and it became part of our enduring character. That is the Singapore Story. Sir, I became a Member of this House on 2 January 1997. I am into my 24th year as a Member of Parliament. Perhaps, it is timely for me to thank you, your predecessors and Parliament staff, both past and present, all my colleagues in this Chamber, both past and present. It has been an opportunity of a lifetime to be able to serve the people of Singapore as an elected Member of Parliament. I will always cherish this experience for the rest of my life. So, thank you all for a wonderful experience. Sir, on that note, I support the Budget Statement. [Applause.]”
“Our own teams in Singapore have assured us that we are ready with new measures if the situation worsens. Our best response is to continue to be vigilant, practise the proposed hygiene practices and make it our way of life and look out for one another in this difficult time. How would this moment in our history be remembered? After SARS, the then Ministry of Community Development and Sports proposed the Fabric of the Nation project. As a nation, including our then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and his wife, we stitched together patches of fabric to symbolise the coming together of people from all walks of life in overcoming that challenge together. Today, that Fabric of the Nation hangs quietly in the lobby of the Ministry of Social and Family Development, a reminder of who we are as a people in times of crisis. It is still early for us to think of such projects of closure. But one thing we can do as a nation is to adopt new norms of hygiene standards, work-life balance arrangements, more adoption of technological ways of doing things, such as running online classes and meetings, and other reasonable practices that can become our new way of life. I would add one more change and, that is, of our attitude towards those at the frontline in fighting this challenge. Someone has to keep Singapore clean, keep our transport system moving, ensure there are enough supplies in our markets and supermarkets, and attend to those who are sick and unwell as we battle this crisis. These are our fellow Singaporeans and workers who put their lives on the line for the sake of Singapore. They, too, have families anxious for the safety of their parents, siblings and loved ones either here or elsewhere.”
“There are ethical issues associated with artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of machine learning algorithms. Can we trust that these technologies will be deployed in a manner that preserves the best interest of Singaporeans? Just like the guidelines for the use of AI which have been released by the Ministry of Communications and Information in Davos earlier this year, perhaps there is a need for a community wide conversation on how these technologies should be deployed. Should we not consider the creation of an independent Digital Commission that looks at these concerns from all sides dispassionately? Just like the trust we have in our other public institutions, should we not consider similar public institutions that can build trust in our people in dealing with these new technologies? Sir, I raise these concerns and suggestions out of the belief that continuing digitalisation of our economy and society is a good thing but we cannot avoid the nagging concerns of privacy and transparency that digitalisation will bring. If we do not deal with this early, then trust in the Government can be eroded. I hope creating an independent Digital Commission to look at these issues can help address these concerns. When human biomedical research raised some concerns, we created the Bioethics Advisory Committee to advise the Government on these matters. It is time we have a similar committee for the digital revolution. Sir, the COVID-19 challenge will pass, as other virus infections have gone in the past. How this challenge will unfold is unclear. But given recent reports of infections in South Korea, Italy and Iran and the warning raised by the US health authorities, it will be sometime before this is over.”
“So, too, for the many Apps that have been developed by both the private sector and our Government. But the flip side of all these new applications of technology are issues of accountability, transparency and trust. Can our Government protect us from being manipulated by the big tech giants? Can we trust our Government to use our personal data for the benefit of all Singaporeans and not some political agenda? These are questions of trust brought about by the use of technology in our everyday lives. Sir, trust between our Government and the people will undergo stresses as we grapple with these issues. The trust we have built over the past 60 years or so has given us a quality of life that is the envy of other nations. Going forward, what more can be done to nurture this trust? What can be done to meet the expectations of our people in an increasingly complex world we are living in today? We have seen how trust has broken down in other societies leading to the rise of populism. And with social media and the rise of misinformation and alternative facts, sometimes, it is unclear whether the lack of trust in Government is an effect of all these developments or it is the cause for the rise of alternative centres of trust. Our trust in public institutions in Singapore, such as our hospitals, schools, Courts and security agencies, are, indeed, very high. This is because these institutions have been well managed, staffed by capable and competent people, and are known to deliver good and fair outcomes. We trust that these institutions will do what is right and just. Similarly, as we digitalise our society, trust that these technologies will be used correctly is important.”
“Sir, consider our efforts at digitalising the economy and our society. When I asked some residents about the many cameras placed at the void decks and some common areas, they generally believe that the Government is doing so for their safety and security. People trust that our Government is using the data captured for good. But this is not the case in some other countries. In places like San Francisco, the residents have voted against having videos in public places. For our own digitalisation efforts to succeed, people must trust that their data is collected solely for the purpose of developing useful services for them. By all accounts, we have done well thus far. But it is not inconceivable for some to begin to raise the issues of privacy and how their personal data is being used. The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) has put in place several measures to protect personal data, but the emergence of data protection legislation that favours more to data owners, such as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California Consumer Privacy Act, will cause some to wonder whether PDPA is sufficiently rigorous to protect personal data. Similarly, since the Government's handling of citizens data is carved out from PDPA, a time will come when some will raise issues of privacy and accountability. Sir, my intent in raising these issues is for all of us to be cognisant of the potential hazards awaiting us in our journey towards digitalising our economy and society. I believe strongly that we must leverage technology, especially on those that will improve our quality of life. Internet banking, for example, means I do not have to queue up at bank branches anymore. Immediately, my quality of life has improved.”
“This shows a lack of trust. Chaos could have broken out leading to unimaginable losses. This is something we all do not want to happen in Singapore. Another issue of trust currently being debated is POFMA as some view this as an attempt to stifle dissent on the Internet. There is a sense among them that the Government is using this legislation for its own agenda rather than serving the needs of our people. I am all too familiar with this kind of concern. When I moved to license online news sites in 2013, several Internet groups alleged that this move would kill the diversity of voices on the Internet. As it turns out, the licensing scheme did not stifle the Internet at all. Many groups continue to flourish on the Internet. All we wanted, and I am sure all of us can agree to this, is responsible behavior on the Internet, especially when the issues affect the lives of so many Singaporeans. Sir, going forward, this issue of trust will continue to arise as we grapple with increasingly complex issues. Consider the effects of climate change on our small island. It is a long-term issue which requires us to put in place the solutions now. It means spending valuable state resources on matters which will affect future generations but does not bring immediate benefits. At the same time, if other countries do not put in place their own mitigation measures, climatic changes can affect us. Hence, dealing with the effects of climate change will raise many questions about how the Government should best use our limited fiscal resources for the good of our country. And the Government will need to build trust that it is doing what is right for our people, even though it means spending significant resources over a very long-term period to benefit future generations.”
“If we make this change permanent, would our quality of life not improve? For those with young children in school, being at home on a working day can, indeed, be helpful. Sir, I am sure we can work out the gains and losses so that we understand the impact this change may have on our country. Likewise, conducting classes online has become a part of the new normal. Coming from an IHL, I am all for online learning to be one of the features of our IHLs. IHLs can decide on the balance among the various classes. Online learning will release classrooms for other needs. Clearly, interaction between students and staff must continue, albeit for those that really warrant, it such as tutorials, project discussions and lab work. Sir, I have full confidence in the Ministerial team in not only dealing with this crisis but also in learning from it valuable lessons that will help us prepare for the next crisis. So, let us work together with the team and other Singaporeans in seeing the end of this current crisis as soon as possible. I am sure Ministers Gan Kim Yong and Lawrence Wong are both looking forward to a good night's sleep and perhaps a round of golf when all this is over. I look forward to meeting them at the greens. Sir, there is an issue that I think deserves some discussion. The rush to stock up food items over that fateful weekend reminds us that getting communications right is very important. During SARS, there was no social media. Today, we are inundated by news of all sorts from various platforms and from friends and strangers alike. The fundamental question is whether we trust the Government in telling us what is the right thing to do, especially during a crisis. Rumours and misinformation about lack of supplies helped to fuel senseless hoarding.”
“Our Government has responded decisively to the crisis. As a people, we have shown both the good and not so good behaviour during this challenging time. The rush for food items and sundry items, such as toilet paper, when the DORSCON level was changed from Yellow to Orange, reflected not only anxiety but also an irrational response that brought out the worst of Singaporeans. My thanks to all the staff of the various supermarkets and outlets for showing immense patience and fortitude during this period. Several self-initiated efforts have emerged to rally support for our frontline workers. Youth groups, religious and community organisations, civil society groups and several selfless individuals are all coming together to play their part in this effort. These and other examples of selfless Singaporeans stepping forward to do what they can to deal with this crisis are instances that should give us hope that there is the better side of us waiting to come out, especially when the need arises. Many have also adjusted to a new normal of washing our hands regularly, staying away from crowded places, wearing a mask if we are unwell and spending time with loved ones in parks and beaches enjoying the fresh air and breeze prevalent this time of the year. Sir, if out of this crisis our hygiene standards are raised and, as a people, we become more conscious of keeping Singapore clean, then we would not have wasted the lessons of this crisis. Some have also adjusted to working in different teams at different times and locations, such as their homes, and meeting only if necessary. And I am told by a friend that because of some working from home, Raffles Place is a lot quieter and cleaner. Congestion in the morning seems to have eased a bit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this Debate. Sir, the Budget proposed has been characterised as having something for everyone. It consists of two parts, one dealing with the effects of the COVID-19 crisis meant to stabilise the economy and support those affected by the current crisis, and a second component designed to help our country continue to grow over the longer term. It supports a range of short-term measures to help us tide over the current crisis and a broad suite of longer-term measures to ensure that the economy continues to grow over the long term and that our people can enjoy an increasing quality of life. Among the proposed measures which, for me, deserves special mention are increasing the Budget for CSA to embark on new capabilities needed to protect our information technology (IT) systems against increasingly sophisticated attacks, removing the internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040 and replacing them with electric vehicles (EVs), and measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. All these resonate with me, not just because they are important issues affecting the future of our country but also because I have always believed that we, as a nation, can take the global lead on these issues. Sir, I also welcome the delay in increasing the GST rate by one year. Sir, despite the COVID-19 crisis, we must have one eye on the future. We cannot afford to be distracted from discussing the real challenges facing our country. It is also important that we learn from this experience and put in place changes and preparations that can help us face the next crisis. Our response to the SARS episode in 2003 and subsequent changes we made to prepare for the next crisis have stood us well in this instance.”
“Perhaps, in such cases, the Government could consider a range of engagement efforts involving leaders from all the communities involved to resolve the dispute. So, let us not be quick to condemn the slightest provocation as it could all be a simple misunderstanding. Sir, even though the amendment excludes what is said privately and to a small group, I would urge my countrymen to aim for a higher bar. I understand this exclusion stems from the practical difficulties in policing all corners of Singapore. Yet, the best restraint must come from all of us. What we believe is the right thing to say in public must also be the right thing to say privately. What underpins our behavior publicly and privately must be the belief that what all Singaporeans hold dear as their faith deserves to be respected, irrespective of our own beliefs and faith. Sir, I have expressed some views that, hopefully, will help this legislation better safeguard our religious harmony. Having said that, it must be the desire of all our faith groups and leaders that we interact freely with grace and mutual respect, without the need for the law to kick in. Sir, I support the amendment.”
“Likewise, we need to be careful not to silence civil interfaith and intrafaith conversations and debates, even about sensitive issues which can yield important insights and further deepen understandings on all sides. Sir, we must also not lose sight that legislation can only be a part of an array of policy responses to promote tolerance and harmony. In fact, the use of the law is the last resort. The basis for religious harmony also cannot be the fear of the law. For religious harmony in a society to be strong and enduring, the citizenry must uphold the values of mutual respect and appreciation towards religious diversity. In this regard, in Singapore, educational efforts as well as outreach toward youth and community groups enable people to better understand the beliefs of religious groups and to forge friendships across communities. All these efforts must continue and be strengthened. Where there are transgressions, providing platforms and avenues whereby religious groups respond and confront hateful views with arguments and information remain important. Sir, finally, this amendment is thus about preserving our way of life and strengthening the Singapore approach to dealing with diversity and differences. Mistrust among the different faith communities can lead to the breaking up of our society. There is a need for this legislation in dealing with those planning to split the communities in Singapore. While no one can disagree with the need to use a legal response to clear-cut egregious cases, I would urge the Government to exercise sensitivity in cases where there is some ambiguity on both the alleged culprit and alleged victim.”
“Apart from these concerns of definition and interpretation, we need to be careful about how we go about implementing or prosecuting these cases. A real question is at what point do we impose aggressive punishments and restrictions. The need for strong and decisive measures against egregious cases – threats, open harassment and incitement to violence – are clear-cut. Such a posture not only protects against the stirring up of religious conflicts but sends a strong message that any attempt to incite ill-will or violence will not be tolerated. Yet, where engagement and dialogue are possible, the imposition of community service work or engagement with community groups would be more appropriate. Sir, we can all agree on the need for the Bill to be updated to deter insidious attempts to stir up religious discord that divides communities. The digital revolution has made it easy to spread extreme opinions, and such people may feel that they can be more abusive online without having to face consequences. We need to send a strong signal that the harmonious relations that we have built up over the last 54 years are precious and must be guarded jealously. Like a piece of good China, once broken, it is very difficult to put the pieces back together. Yet, Sir, the need to be careful must not end up silencing all discussion of religious topics by making it such that the definitions of illegal behaviour are so ambiguous that no one can be sure what might be judged hateful. Ironically, this might end up deterring meaningful interfaith efforts among groups as people steer away from any activity or topic for fear of causing unintended offence.”
“More people are turning towards religion. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion where “every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it”. Again, how do we define “aggressive proselytisation”? If I merely state the truth as I believe it to be about my religion to another person of a different faith and make claims that his religion is not true, is this considered aggressive? Sir, in this era of political correctness, some would consider this aggressive. I am not opposed to proselytisation. It is about how it is conducted. In fact, the 1989 White Paper provided many examples by different groups of what they deemed to be aggressive proselytisation. Egregious cases can be easily ferreted out. But what about those who do it through actions which are not religiously related, like showing preferences in hiring or giving certain advantages to those from the same faith? The White Paper highlighted in its section on religion and politics on the need to keep the public space as secular as possible. Interestingly, the paper also cautions that it is almost impossible for someone who is voting to base his decision on his secular half and not his religious half. Such compartmentalisation, it notes, is “neither possible nor desirable”. That is why it is absurd to ask me to decide whether I am first a Muslim or a Singaporean. So, if we agree that if it is not possible to compartmentalise ourselves, then we must be alert to the breaching of the barriers of secularism in our public life. That is, we must continue to strengthen our common spaces and ensure that religious actors cannot impose their will on public policy to the detriment of other religious groups or the public good.”
“My concern is that the ambiguities of what being wounded constitutes and, when public order or peace is threatened, can lead to some claims of ill-will that lead to an unintended escalation and expansion of the conflicts. Hence, I hope the Minister can enlighten us. Sir, the concerns I have raised earlier equally apply to intra-religious differences. The White Paper of 1989 also raised this as an issue for the attention of our Government. I support this, especially when we see sectarian violence in different parts of the world within the same faith community. I am particularly concerned about the Sunni-Shia divide that is evident in some parts of the world and has found its way into the region. We must not import the religious divides and violence of other countries into Singapore. I have expressed my concern about this trend on other platforms and have called for better understanding between my Sunni compatriots and the Shias who, while not great in number in this part of the world, are also Muslims. We must respect and adopt an attitude of live and let live towards one another, while feeling equally attached to our faith and our desire to do good. But I would welcome the force of this Bill to be applied to those seeking to divide the community or, for that matter, any faith community. We know that there are different sects in almost every religion and there are tensions of varying degrees among groups in every religion. So, whether in Islam or in any other religion, I believe that religious harmony must start at home and every faith community must respect differences within their own faiths. Sir, my final point pertains to one of the reasons for the 1990 MRHA, as raised in the 1989 White Paper – aggressive proselytisation. Religious consciousness is on the rise.”
“After all, is religion not, by its very nature, exclusive? This was pointed out by the White Paper of 26 December 1989. I adopt a certain religion because I believe it to be the truth and everything else to be untrue. And if I utter my views about what I understand and believe to be untrue of the other religions publicly, will I be guilty of an offence? A similar concern could be raised for those without any religious belief but who believe that certain practices of certain religions are not right and may make public statements about it. The bar in this case would be if it threatens public order or public peace. If only one person feels wounded by the words of a non-religious person expressing his or her negative views of that person’s religion, would that be a sufficient condition to deem this action an offence? And what if the “wounded person” can claim publicly on social media that his religion has been insulted and others from his religion feel equally wounded, would that make it an offence? Would there be any difference if 10 others, or perhaps a thousand others, express support for him online? And in this respect, hatred could be directed towards the person who started this all. Can that person then seek protection under the Bill as his life is now being threatened by those feeling wounded? This scenario I have painted is already happening on social media. The to-ing and fro-ing of claims and counterclaims of who is right and wrong about views of religion and religious practices is likely to spark unintended consequences, even though the origins of these spats may merely stem from a difference of views and are not motivated by hate of a particular religious group.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. The Bill was crafted and passed in 1990. Since its passage, the Government has not had to invoke the Bill. Now, 27 years later, observing a different environment, the Government has identified the need to update and improve this piece of legislation. So, what has changed? One could argue that the fact that we never invoked the Bill shows that our society is harmonious despite our religious differences and that perhaps we could even repeal the Bill entirely. Sir, that would be foolish. Human societies are not static and the world has changed since 1990. Human habits and attitudes have not changed, especially when it comes to dealing with differences and diversity. The ability to provoke and incite violence may be as old as mankind. And, in recent years, we continue to see violence sparked and perpetuated in the name of religion. So, in general, Sir, I support these amendments. But forgive the pun, the devil is in the details. I have two concerns. The new section 17F raises several concerns to me. The provisions are meant to curb and restrain any attempt at creating ill-will and feelings of hatred towards other religious groups by either a religious leader or an individual who is not a religious leader. But for the latter, it is an offence when the action is deemed to “threaten the public peace or order in Singapore or any part of Singapore”. So, clearly, for religious leaders, given their level of influence, the bar to make their actions an offence is much lower than those of lay persons. However, I have two concerns with this provision. In the first instance, how do we define being wounded by words of the other parties? Insults are clear. But what about genuine differences of opinions or views?”
“Our museums can do more to have spaces that touch on the subject of precolonial history and to give people access to the archeological finds. At the same time, acknowledging how that history has impinged on our own history and the myriad strands of diversity of ideas, lifestyle, food, religions that have come together to enrich our own experience as both Singaporeans and Southeast Asians. Sir, I support the Budget.”
“I would also add that our history is intertwined with the history of the region. Our history points to certain truths about this region and Singapore. That I think is a point that needs to be stressed more by this commemoration. In this way, more, especially our young, will understand how Singapore has been and will continue to be a part of the larger region, tapping on its good location and the talent of our diverse peoples to provide a peaceful hub for mutually beneficial trade and commerce. The diversity that we see here in Singapore reflects the diversity of the region and beyond. When I walk the corridors of the HDB flats in my constituency, I can hear different voices, dialects and languages. My friends who hail from Bugis or Minang ancestry are proud of their heritage. Sir, we are sons and daughters of Singapore and children of Nusantara. We should use this commemoration to celebrate the diversity that defines who we are and to promote a better understanding and appreciation for the long and rich history of Singapore and this region. Hence, I hope that this will not just be a one-off commemoration. Arising from this, we could consider looking at our history curriculum in schools to ensure that students are well-versed in precolonial history as well as a deeper understanding of the region. National education at the higher primary and lower secondary levels can be expanded so that Singaporeans better understand the colonial experiences of our ASEAN neighbours. Talk about both the good and the bad so that we know ourselves better and will never again be divided or colonised. Being part of this region, I strongly believe that we should have a good understanding and appreciation of the region’s history.”
“Singapore was also far more intimately connected to its historical predecessors as well as its locational context." Sir, this is an important point. It is right that we acknowledge every event for what it is worth. The coming of the colonialists changed the region forever. As it turns out, Singapore today is a thriving metropolis. But to overly ascribe this success to the coming of the British is to ignore larger forces at work well before the arrival of the British. Sir, this commemoration should also lead us to a better appreciation of our communities' history and our place in the region. Out of the colonial experience emerged many disturbing myths about this region, including the most toxic myth of the lazy native. This myth has been studied and debunked extensively, for instance, by the late Prof Syed Hussein Alatas in his famous book entitled "The Myth of the Lazy Native", which tore apart the colonial ideology behind labelling the indigenous population as lazy for not wanting to work in the mines and plantations. Nevertheless, that still lingers in the minds of some people. When I was growing up in modern Singapore, my own teachers dismissed my community as being lazy and unable to study hard. Sir, this is the burden of history that my community carries. It is unjust and unfair. If we are to commemorate the Bicentennial, we must also recognise the less savoury aspects of it – practices and ideas designed to meet the needs and maximise the profits of the empire at the expense of the indigenous population. In view of our long history, some historians have asked why not celebrate 700 years of our history? Why only focus on the 200 years? I support this idea as it would help us to better understand 1819 as one milestone among many.”
“Hence, this commemoration should aim to strengthen our ties as a nation by helping us better appreciate and understand the various communities' historical experiences and memories, as well as banish forever myths and misperceptions of our history that do damage to our communities. The first myth is that Singapore was a fishing village waiting to be discovered and transformed into a modern metropolis. In fact, historians have uncovered concrete evidence to suggest that Singapore was once a vibrant economic hub and not a fishing village waiting to be discovered by enlightened British imperialists. And I quote here from the historian Peter Borschberg from his article "Singapore as a Port City, 1290-1819: Evidence, Frameworks and Challenges". I quote, "There is an enduring perception in our historical consciousness that before the arrival of Raffles, Singapore remained unrecognised and underappreciated fallow land. However, as we dig deeper into the past, the mirror of history unabashedly refutes the belief that Singapore was a sleepy backwater kampung, forgotten or neglected by the powers that trawled these waters for centuries. Similarly, it is also a misguided notion that no one had envisaged the presence of a port in Singapore before 1819. The impetus here is a larger one, not only for the history of the port but also for Singapore's history as a whole – one cannot remain obstinate in only thinking about Singapore in terms of an East India Company (EIC) settlement. While the transformative hand of the EIC and the British on Singapore is beyond doubt, there is a history of a port, settlement and island that runs far deeper than historians had surmised until about the beginning of the third millennium.”
“Sir, I cannot agree more with him on this issue. If we are to build an inclusive society, as mentioned by the Minister for Finance, then we need to ensure that inclusivity applies not just to how we view the here and now, but also how we view our history as a people. We need to acknowledge that different communities have different historical experiences and memories. We need to recognise both the good and the bad. The coming of the British and the start of colonial rule in this region is an important event for all of us to reflect upon. After all, the very language we use today in education, commerce and many other facets of our life is a colonial heritage. But we need also to be cognisant that there are winners and losers in history. And history is written by the winners for the winners. Eighteen nineteen is marked as a turning point in our history. And yet the sacking of a once-vibrant Malacca Sultanate in 1511 by the Portuguese has also been highlighted by some historians as a turning point for this region. Some have speculated that it marked the death of the indigenous mercantile class, leaving the region more vulnerable to conquest by succeeding waves of European colonisers. It has led some to wonder what would have happened if this region had not experienced colonialism. What shape would indigenous politics have taken? So, the first point I would like to make is that we need to acknowledge the varying impact of colonialism on the indigenous population and other populations. Sir, I welcome the opportunity to use the Bicentennial as an occasion to reflect on who we are. And I share Minister Heng Swee Keat's call to build a caring and inclusive society.”
“Interestingly enough, these measures are parked under the pillar of building a caring and inclusive society. Sir, as I understand it, this commemoration is a ground-up effort in which different groups are encouraged to talk about their history, contributions and other aspects that can help our current and succeeding generations understand our history better. The Prime Minister in his 2018 New Year's Day message called for us to use the Bicentennial "to reflect on how our nation came into being, how we have come this far since, and how we can go forward together". Since then, there have been several exhibitions, events, talks and opinion pieces about this occasion. Sir, I am struck by the responses in our newspapers, on social media and in my conversations with residents and volunteers. While there is broad-based support for the commemoration, there are also voices of concern and unease. One particular response struck me deeply. A certain Mr Osman Sidek wrote to the Straits Times and his letter was published in the 4 February 2019 issue. In it, he raised the insightful point that colonialism cannot just be presented from one community's perspective. The impact of colonialism on the indigenous population and their sense of loss and justice need also to be acknowledged. But he cautioned that the unhappiness is not directed at history, but at the very idea of colonialism or, specifically, how one could lose one’s own country to colonisers. He appealed for us to reflect on how such a historical event could have happened and that Singaporeans must endeavour never again to lose our own country to another. And he ended by asking us, having experienced colonial rule, to empathise with those societies "whose lands are occupied against their will, even in this day and age".”
“Consider, for example, the number of community gardens that have flourished in our heartlands. I have 13 of such gardens in my own constituency and we are now planning our 14th garden. These gardens have attracted residents whom we may not otherwise see in some of our grassroots events. Some have used the produce of the gardens to raise funds for their welfare committee, while others have used the gardens as venues to conduct healthy cooking classes with HPB. Another example I can compare this to, Sir, is the Active, Beautiful and Clean (ABC Waters) programme which I initiated as Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Before the ABC Waters programme came about, there used to be many signs across our reservoirs warning the public not to do a variety of things near or in the reservoir. But to the credit of PUB, they accepted my idea and created new recreational spaces out of our drains and reservoirs. That, Sir, is creativity. More importantly, our reservoirs and water bodies are now full of life and activities. So, I am hopeful that if we do this right, we can turn our void decks into places of energy, life and creativity. It requires, of course, our authorities to move away from an attitude of so strictly regulating these spaces that they have become sterile, void of life. We want to strike a balance so that some messiness is possible, but, in return, the neighbourhoods of our heartlands can become the birthplaces of mutual support, practical ingenuity and great ideas. Sir, my final point today is on the Bicentennial commemoration. The Minister for Finance announced two initiatives – the Bicentennial Community Fund and the Bicentennial Bonus – to support the commemoration.”
“I support the Ministry of National Development (MND) and HDB's efforts to refresh our towns, inject new businesses, and introduce new ways of encouraging interaction. In this regard, I would like to suggest a fresh approach to instilling innovation and entrepreneurship. Many Singaporeans may remember replicating the exploits of Maradona or Ronaldo at the void decks, though they will also remember, too, how many at a time they incurred the anger of the immediate neighbours staying on the second floor or of the Town Council officials. Many also may recall seeing Malay boys stripping their motorcycles to clean and make minor repairs at the void decks. These days, we see groups of professionals offering free repair services in the heartlands who are continuing that tradition of tinkering. Calling themselves Repair Kopitiam, they encourage home owners to bring the broken appliances to the void decks for them to help home owners learn how to repair the appliances. Our ability to repair things when they are broken is an important skillset that can help to reduce waste. More importantly, Sir, it would help to reduce excessive consumption. Sir, our void decks offer a wonderful opportunity for the creative energies in our heartlands to be unlocked. I am proposing that we convert as many void deck spaces as feasible into Smart Void Decks. I am not suggesting that we just wire up the spaces for connectivity purposes only. I am proposing that we convert these spaces into maker spaces for our heartlanders, a comfortable place where anyone can go to tinker and fix things, to create, meet and discuss new ideas and solutions for the community. Sir, there are many parallels to this idea. It is not unique.”
“For some, it is a matter of survival, making just enough sales to get by, while others hesitate to spend resources on something they are not sure will benefit their businesses. To me, transforming an economy is not just about economics. It is also about transforming our society, from business owners to workers, so that all levels of society embrace the spirit of change. At stake are the livelihoods of business owners and workers, the hopes and dreams of our families, and the future of our children. That is why my colleagues at IMDA and I will continue to undertake outreach and engagement so that we can help as many of our SMEs to adopt digital solutions. My hope, Sir, is that Government agencies will continue to listen and problem-solve with us, so that we can remove roadblocks to progress and remove misconceptions that prevent businesses from embarking on change. Sir, there is another dimension to the economic transformation which I would like to speak on, and this is regarding building up an entrepreneurial culture among our young. The startup scene in Singapore is vibrant. I am actively involved with several startups as advisor. I am also involved with several networking sessions involving Malay/Muslim startups and entrepreneurs. I meet many new entrepreneurs regularly, some young, some not so young. It is heartening to meet mid-career professionals who have decided to give entrepreneurship a go. And I hope that some, if not all, will succeed in making it big, thereby bringing some sense of achievement for our country as a whole. My concern, however, Sir, is whether such a vibrancy is felt in our heartlands.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Sir, I am in support of the Budget as outlined by the Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat. There is support for almost every segment of our society, from families to workers and our elderly. Of interest to me and my generation is the MGP. I am thankful that the Government recognises a generation that grew up in relative poverty but who had put in so much hard work to build this new nation. Support has also been given our SMEs to help them flourish in a changing economy. Sir, I will not touch on these topics as my more esteemed colleagues in this Chamber will invariably present their views on them. Today, with your indulgence, I would like to share my views on two issues, namely, on growing the economy and on the Bicentennial commemoration. Sir, of concern to me is the transformation of the economy. This is important as it will mean the continued survival of our nation and I do not pretend it is an easy thing to do, something which Minister Heng Swee Keat acknowledged in his speech. Having been involved in this process in my previous incarnation, I can see the necessity of transformation. Nevertheless, I also share the concerns of our business community, especially our SMEs. I am currently advising the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) on the digital transformation of the Kampong Glam district involving some 200 SMEs. I have been meeting these businesses to share with them the benefits of the digital revolution. Our SMEs can grasp that the world is changing and that their businesses must change, too. Nevertheless, our SMEs face a myriad of challenges.”
“Section 16 is introduced to clarify situations in which a film will be refused classification, after being reviewed by IMDA or FAC. It entails no change in content standards for films. Sections 22 and 22A empower IMDA to approve or refuse approval of advertisements for films and set out the offences involving such advertisements. Section 27 is amended to confine the Minister's powers to order FAC to only review films that IMDA has classified. This clarifies the FAC's role as an appellate body for classification decisions. Section 38 introduces standard provisions so that corporations and unincorporated associations or partnerships are also liable for offences under the FA and not just individuals. Section 38B provides for the composition of less serious offences. Consequential amendments are also made to the Cinematograph Film Hire Duty Act due to the transfer of functions from BFC to IMDA, and the Public Entertainments Act as it has cross-referenced the FA's definition of "film". Sir, the amendments proposed are a practical set of changes that will allow MCI and IMDA to respond to changes in the film and media landscape, while ensuring that the FA remains relevant to both industry and our society. But the media environment remains highly dynamic. MCI and IMDA will continue to review both local and international developments and consider future changes to the Act when the time is right. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“We have also provided an avenue so that owners can challenge seizures of their items in Court within 48 hours of the seizure. The new sections 23, 34 and 34A will enable IMDA to enforce the FA effectively and efficiently whenever necessary. They will also allow the Police to focus their resources on other threats to security and law and order. Sir, I would like to assure the House that IMDA will calibrate its enforcement actions and only use the most intrusive powers when it is absolutely necessary to safeguard public interest. We will also enhance the range of IMDA's regulatory actions so that it can better tailor regulatory responses to the severity of breaches. Section 11 is amended to widen the range of regulatory actions that can be taken against licensees for non-compliance with FA. For instance, IMDA will be able to act against a single outlet of a distributor for a breach, instead of penalising every outlet under the distributor. Sir, I will now touch briefly on the fifth and final set of key amendments in the Bill. Clause 2 amends the Act's long title to reflect the shift from censorship towards classification. Sections 3 and 4 are amended to dissolve and transfer the functions of the Board of Film Censors (BFC) to IMDA. This simply regularises the existing practice where the Minister has appointed IMDA officers to BFC since 2003. Thus, there is no need to maintain a BFC structure that is distinct from IMDA. There will be no knock-on changes to the classification processes. Several sections are amended to remove the minimum fines for various FA offences. This will align FA with modern legislative practice which gives the Courts discretion to impose an appropriate sentence, unconstrained by minimum fines.”
“Today, even if IMDA seizes obscene or unclassified films under existing powers, the matter has to be passed over to the Police for investigations, despite IMDA having the requisite expertise. Sections 23, 34 and 34A in clauses 11 and 20 will address these gaps. These new sections empower IMDA to: first, request information and documents that are necessary to ensure compliance with the amended FA and gain access to places where films are publicly exhibited or distributed for inspection purposes; second, require the attendance of persons for the purpose of investigating breaches and offences under the amended FA; and third, enter with the occupier's consent or a Court warrant, search and seize evidence with a Court warrant for FA offences. However, for serious offences in the Act, such as those involving obscene and unclassified films, an IMDA enforcement officer can enter, search and seize evidence without warrant. We have also made several adjustments to address public feedback. We have confined these powers to the more serious offences, extending them only to those involving prohibited films and the unlicensed public exhibition of films. These offences are specified in section 34A. The power to enter and search without warrant will only be exercised when the enforcement officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the specified offences have been committed or are being committed, or that evidence of the commission of the specified offences can be found in the relevant premises and it is necessary to secure the evidence to prevent it from being concealed, lost or destroyed. In addition, all enforcement powers will only be exercised by IMDA's enforcement officers who are and will continue to be trained by the Home Team.”
“As one of the smallest and most open countries, we are also highly susceptible to foreign influences and information campaigns that can undermine our social values and sow discord among our communities. Advances in technology mean that such undesirable content can easily be disseminated locally, through the rapid and mass reproduction of films in thumbdrives, digital video disc (DVDs) or secure digital (SD) cards, or streamed from overseas for screening in Singapore. Issues like race and religion have torn many societies apart, but, in Singapore, we live together harmoniously. This did not occur by chance, and we need to continue to work hard to preserve it. Under the current FA, IMDA, as the licensing and classification authority, already has powers to enter premises and seize items that constitute evidence, without warrant, for serious offences, such as those involving obscene and unclassified films. These powers are vital to the protection of public interest so that IMDA is able to secure the necessary evidence for prosecution. Without-warrant powers and the use of reasonable force to gain entry are crucial, given the ease of flight and the ease of removing evidence. For example, an ad hoc public exhibition of an unclassified film can be over in two hours or less, while thumbdrives and SD cards can be quickly and easily disposed of. However, Sir, there are two gaps today. First, IMDA's existing enforcement powers do not cover several serious offences, such as those involving films prohibited by the Minister on public interest grounds and unlicensed public exhibition. Second, IMDA has no powers to require information or record statements from persons who have knowledge of the offence.”
“It is neither ideal nor fair for a citizen panel, such as FAC, to assess threats to national security, as members may not be privy to the full extent of security concerns due to the sensitivity of the information. Notwithstanding this, section 24A requires the Minister to first consult with FAC before coming to a final decision, to preserve citizen representation in the deliberation of such appeals. I would add that films are rarely disallowed on grounds of national security, but we need to be vigilant. The amendment also takes into account the increasing pervasiveness of media and how different media, including film, can be used to disseminate content that could undermine our security. Lastly, section 25 is amended to allow the Minister to appoint between 15 and 21 members to FAC instead of 15 members currently, to change the quorum from five members to at least one-third of members, and to determine the term of FAC members for up to three years. Sir, this will allow for greater representation within FAC and address situations, such as appointing new members to fill unexpected vacancies mid-term. The fourth set of amendments seeks to extend IMDA's enforcement and investigation powers for better administration of the Act. I will elaborate on the need for these amendments as they received the most feedback during our public consultation. Besides protecting the young, films are also regulated to ensure that the content does not undermine the social fabric of our society, racial and religious harmony or national security. This is particularly critical, given our diverse, multiracial and multi-religious society.”
“A film classified in the past may thus qualify for a different classification rating today. This amendment will enable IMDA to respond to new information or changes in the film classification guidelines by reviewing past classification decisions to keep them up to date. A film may be reclassified to a higher or lower rating. Should stakeholders be aggrieved by the reclassification, they may appeal to the Films Appeal Committee (FAC). Second, a new section 28 will set out a new right of appeal to the Minister against IMDA's decision in areas other than classification, like refusing licensing, suspending or revoking licences or refusing to register a person as a film CA. This will bring the FA in line with other media laws which have such provisions and ensure that the industry has avenues of recourse for both classification and non-classification related decisions. Third, section 24, which deals with appeals against IMDA's classification decisions, will be amended to allow a broader group of appellants, so long as these persons have a nexus to the film. This includes the person who applied for classification, the person who intends to distribute or publicly exhibit the film, the maker of the film, and the film CA whose classification rating has been overruled by IMDA. Fourth, section 24 will also be amended for appeals against IMDA's decision to refuse classification for films that are against national security. These appeals will henceforth be heard and decided by the Minister instead of FAC. We have proposed this amendment as ensuring national security is one of the Government's core responsibilities.”
“Third, with technological advances, an exhibitor in Singapore no longer requires the physical reel to screen a film. A cinema operator can have the film digitally streamed from overseas for public exhibition. Clause 3 updates the definitions in section 2 to allow IMDA to regulate the public exhibition of films consistently, whether they are screened from a copy or via a transmission. Since online streaming has made film exhibition possible without a physical or digital copy, we also propose to amend section 35 to clarify that exhibiting prohibited films is also an offence, besides the possession and distribution of such films. Fourth, section 10A is introduced to allow IMDA to create a system of class licences for film activities where a lighter regulatory approach is appropriate. Clause 3 introduces a new definition for video games, to clarify that only physical video games will be regulated under the amended Act. These changes will enable IMDA to enhance the protection of minors by establishing an automatic class licence for retailers of video games. IMDA will be able to impose licence conditions, such as specifying that retailers do not sell Mature 18 (M18) video games to underage patrons. Since the class licence is automatic, video game retailers need not register, nor will there be licence fees or performance bonds. It would be largely business as usual for these retailers. Sir, the third set of amendments in clauses 11 and 15 seeks to enhance the classification and appeals process in five areas, so as to keep up with changing times and evolving societal norms. First, a new section 15 will empower IMDA to reclassify films. Films are classified based on the film classification guidelines, which are updated from time to time to reflect our evolving norms and values.”
“Going forward, the type of activities to be regulated will be reduced. First, the Act will be amended to reflect IMDA's focus on the distribution and public exhibition of films. Clauses 7 and 11, therefore, clarify that licensing and classification will only apply to the distribution and public exhibition of films henceforth. Section 6 is amended to remove the making and private exhibition of films from the FA’s licensing scope. Section 21 is similarly amended so that films meant for private consumption no longer need to be classified. However, IMDA will still be able to require a film to be submitted for classification. For instance, IMDA may receive feedback that a film contains content that could undermine public interest and would thus require the film for review. This provides a balance between protecting the public and reducing regulatory reach. Second, section 6 will also clarify that a licence is required for the distribution or the public exhibition of films in the course of any business, regardless of whether the core business involves film distribution or exhibition. Such activities need not necessarily be carried out by cinemas or video retailers; one can easily purchase a DVD at a bookstore. Our intent is to regulate the distribution and public exhibition of films consistently, regardless of the nature of the business. Our concern, Sir, is with the film activity and content, rather than the entity or person. To focus IMDA's regulatory efforts further, we also intend to grant exemptions. For instance, there is currently no need to obtain a licence for the public exhibition of films that are classified up to PG13, and we are considering further exemptions for distribution and classification.”
“MCI and IMDA have also engaged the films industry and community since late 2016. We have received much useful feedback and have modified some of our proposals. Our goal is to make the films regulatory regime more business- and consumer-friendly, while ensuring that it remains relevant and effective going forward. Sir, allow me to now go through the key amendments proposed. The first set of amendments seeks to formalise the co-classification scheme, which we have piloted since 2011 for video distribution, and 2015 for film exhibition. The scheme involves allowing external film content assessors (CAs) trained by IMDA to classify films and videos up to Parents Strongly Cautioned (PG13). Sections 19 to 20C of the Bill will formalise this scheme by setting out the registration requirements for film CAs, the types of films they can classify, the duties of the film CAs, and the regulatory steps that may be taken against misclassification. The co-classification scheme will nurture a pool of CAs familiar with the film classification guidelines and enable films and videos to be brought to the market more quickly, thereby benefiting both film exhibitors and distributors, as well as consumers. IMDA will put in place safeguards to ensure that our content standards are upheld. I would also clarify that the scheme is optional. Industry players will get an additional option for film classification, but those who prefer to submit films to IMDA for classification can continue to do so. The second set of amendments seeks to clarify the FA's regulatory scope in four areas. The current FA requires all films to be classified. Anyone who wishes to import, make, distribute or exhibit a film will also need to be licensed by IMDA, unless exempted.”
“Second, technological developments continue to spur changes in film distribution and consumption. Film exhibitors no longer need physical or digital copies of a film to screen it. Instead, the film can be stored remotely, locally or overseas, and streamed over the Internet to a public screening in Singapore. Digital cinema, as this is known, is already a reality in the United States (US). Video games are also becoming more visually realistic, increasingly featuring mature themes, such as violence, gore and sex. The broader media environment has also shifted as a result of digital advances. We live in an era of media pervasiveness. This gives Singaporeans greater viewing and entertainment choices, but we also have to remain vigilant against content that could weaken our security, stability or unity. Around the world, we have seen a sharp rise in content that spreads discord, extremism and hatred, as well as information campaigns that seek to interfere in elections or the affairs of other countries. While such activities can take the form of tweets and posts, they can also take the form of films. We cannot let them take root here. Third, our society has become more educated and mature, even as the film and media landscape has grown more dynamic and complex. Coupled with the subjective nature of how films can impact viewers and society, this means that what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate content today could be different tomorrow. IMDA should, therefore, have the means to reconsider and update classification-related decisions, especially those that were made many years ago. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and IMDA conducted a four-week public consultation last year to gather feedback on the amendments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Films Act (FA) sets out the regulatory framework for the distribution, exhibition and possession of films in Singapore. Under the Act, distributors and exhibitors are required to obtain a licence from the Info-communications Media Development Authority of Singapore (IMDA). All films also need to be submitted to IMDA for classification. The FA, therefore, ensures consumers can make informed choices about films and video games, protects the young from mature content and ensures that films do not undermine national harmony or security, or the public interest. It was enacted nearly four decades ago in 1981 to replace the Cinematograph Films Act inherited from the British, and to deal with the advent of video tapes and discs. Since 1998, changes have also been made, for instance, to address the introduction of video compact discs (VCDs) and the spread of obscene films. Sir, films play an important role not only in entertaining the public but also in informing and educating Singaporeans and shaping our social development. The FA must, therefore, be updated to remain relevant for the films industry and consumers, but also to continue to safeguard the public interest. The world today has changed significantly since 1998, 20 years ago. The films industry, the broader media landscape and the needs and demands of Singapore consumers have evolved. There are three key trends that underpin our proposed amendments. First, our films industry has grown more vibrant. Today, Singapore moviegoers clock more than 20 million visits annually, achieving one of the highest per-capita cinema attendance rates in the world.”
“Mr Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank Members for their kind comments yesterday. Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to show a short video summarising the work of my Ministry over the past year, and some slides throughout our responses.”
“Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?”
“Sir, Factually aims to clarify widespread or common misperceptions of Government policy, or inaccurate assertions on matters of public concern that can harm Singapore’s social fabric. This is done on a timely basis to ensure that prevailing falsehoods and misinformation are debunked as soon as possible. Over the years, the site has addressed inaccurate assertions on various matters, ranging from savings and taxes to education and employment. For example, in January this year, several online articles claimed that the Government had raised the Central Provident Fund Retirement Sum in a "secret policy change" when, in fact, the revised figures had been publicly announced in 2015 and was widely reported in the media. Another online rumour claimed that our public universities reserve a minimum 20% quota for foreign students when, in fact, no such policy exists. Sir, since its inception in May 2012, 186 Factually articles have been published on the Gov.sg website. Besides providing written facts, Factually also employs graphics to provide greater clarity. In the coming year, we will explore using videos as well.”
“For instance, SingPost invested in a $45-million mail sorting machine that has automated 95% of the mail sorting process. To make it easier for its postmen to deliver mail, SingPost has also introduced more delivery vehicles, such as three-wheel scooters and customised mail delivery trolleys. IMDA is fully supportive of SingPost's on-going efforts to adopt technology and redesign jobs.”
“Mr Speaker, the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) does not limit the number of letter boxes each postman serves. As a licensee, SingPost is required to plan and optimise its operations to meet the IMDA's Postal Quality of Service (QoS) standards, namely, to deliver 100% of all basic letters within two working days of posting. IMDA will take regulatory actions, such as imposing financial penalties, if SingPost fails to meet these standards. Sir, I understand that SingPost recently reviewed its postman delivery routes to ensure that the daily delivery workload is equitably distributed amongst its postmen. Currently, each postman delivers mail items to approximately 2,000 dwelling units, or roughly 20 HDB blocks daily. In designing a postman's delivery route, SingPost ensures that each postman is able to complete his delivery within a standard six-hour delivery window. During peak periods where there are higher mail volumes, SingPost may engage temporary postal workers for sorting duties, redeploy staff or request postmen to work overtime to ensure that mail is delivered in a timely manner. Postmen who work overtime are given overtime pay. The Member asked about regulations to safeguard the working conditions of postmen. Mr Speaker, SingPost has to comply with prevailing labour legislation that protects the rights and welfare of its workers. I am told that over the past few years, SingPost has increased the postmen’s salary and that MOM has not received any valid salary-related complaints over the last five years. The Member also asked about leveraging technology to improve mail operations. I understand that SingPost has been actively adopting technology and has invested $100 million over the last few years to improve its operational efficiency.”
“Mr Speaker, negotiations to secure "live" broadcasting rights for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics are still ongoing. The negotiations are best left to the broadcasters and rights owners to undertake and conclude, as it would be unwise to take the position that we should have "live" telecasts regardless of the cost and for the Government to underwrite any amount demanded by rights owners, particularly when the rights are still being negotiated. Sir, over the years, broadcasting rights fees have been growing rapidly. For instance, for the 2016 Rio Olympics broadcasting rights, Dentsu originally wanted to charge three times what it cost to broadcast the 2012 London Olympics "live". This shows how lucrative the business of broadcasting rights has become. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly difficult for broadcasters to recoup the escalating costs of broadcasting rights, because there are so many cheaper options to watch such sporting events "live". If the rights owners only seek to maximise their profits, they risk making broadcasts of major games less accessible by driving fans to other media channels or away from the sports entirely. This is in no one’s interest in the long term.”
“Mr Speaker, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), includes provisions that regulate unsolicited communications from businesses. The Do Not Call (DNC) Registry was established under PDPA so that individuals who do not wish to receive unsolicited marketing calls and messages can register their telephone and fax numbers. Organisations are required to check with the DNC Registry and refrain from calling, faxing or sending marketing messages to the numbers on the Registry. Sir, the DNC Registry provisions of the PDPA came into force in January 2014. Since then, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has received and investigated some 14,000 DNC-related complaints against businesses, of which more than 4,600 resulted in PDPC taking enforcement or other regulatory action. In addition, Sir, PDPC has received around 10,000 complaints each year related to suspected unlicensed moneylending, which is a serious criminal offence under other laws. These complaints were referred to the Police, who are the relevant authority to investigate unlicensed moneylending offences. Members of the public who receive or are aware of such activities or communications should lodge a Police report or call the National Crime Prevention Council's "X Ah Long" Hotline at 1800-924-5664. Members of the public are urged not to reply or respond to these short messages service (SMSes) or phone calls.”
“With cyber threats growing globally, this Bill is timely to empower CSA to safeguard essential services from disruptions by cyberattacks, prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats and incidents, and to establish a licensing framework to improve the credibility of cybersecurity services in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Financial penalties may be imposed under clause 32 for non-compliance with licensing conditions or for other regulatory breaches that are not an offence, such as the failure to keep and retain proper records. The maximum penalty is $10,000 for each non-compliance but not exceeding, in the aggregate, $50,000. The licensing officer is required under clause 33 to give licensees an opportunity to submit representations before the imposition of financial penalties. Under clause 35, cybersecurity service providers may appeal to the Minister against specific decisions of the licensing officer, such as the refusal to grant a licence and licensing conditions. Sir, the Government cannot achieve a more secure cyberspace alone. We will partner public and private sector stakeholders in the journey to strengthen the protection of CII. CSA will adopt a deliberate process for the designation of CII across the different sectors, in consultation with their owners and the relevant sector regulators where possible. CSA will also implement programmes to help the sector regulators assist CII owners in getting ready to fulfil their obligations under the Bill. We will also engage the industry further on the licensing conditions for licensed cybersecurity service providers under clause 27 of the Bill. The licensing framework will be operationalised at a later stage, after the rest of the Bill. Sir, the Cybersecurity Bill is one part of Singapore's Cybersecurity Strategy to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity posture.”
“Such services, if abused, can compromise and disrupt the clients’ operations even after the service provider’s job has been completed. Furthermore, there is asymmetry of information; many organisations, especially smaller ones, may not know which cybersecurity service providers are ethical or offer reliable services. Part 5 of the Bill provides for a licensing framework for cybersecurity service providers that service the Singapore market. For a start, the licensing framework will be a light touch in view that this is a new initiative and there is a need to strike a good balance between industry development and cybersecurity needs. Only providers of two types of cybersecurity services will be licensed, namely, penetration testing and managed security operations centre (SOC) monitoring. These providers have access to sensitive information from their clients, and the services are also relatively mainstream in our market and, hence, have a significant impact on the overall cybersecurity landscape. Clause 24 requires providers of licensable cybersecurity services that are specified in the Second Schedule to apply for a licence. It will be an offence to provide such services without a licence. The maximum penalty is a $50,000 fine, or two years’ imprisonment, or both. We do not intend to require companies to be licensed for providing licensable cybersecurity services to their related companies. In addition, the term "cybersecurity service", as defined in clause 2, only covers a service provided by a person for a reward to another person, and excludes a service provided in-house to an employer.”
“Information disclosed to CSA may be used to determine if a computer system is a CII (clause 8), technical information relating to a CII (clause 10), or information given pursuant to an investigation into a cybersecurity threat or incident (clause 19 or 20). Therefore, under clause 43, the Commissioner and other specified persons must preserve the secrecy of information that may come to their knowledge as a result of performing their functions or discharging their duties under the Bill. Such information includes matters relating to a computer system, as well as the identity of persons who furnished the information. It will be a criminal offence under clause 43(4) if specified persons fail to preserve the secrecy of such information or unlawfully discloses such information. The maximum penalty is $10,000, or one year’s imprisonment, or both. However, clause 43 provides for the sharing of information in certain circumstances, such as for the purposes of prosecution under the Bill, or to disclose to the Police any information which discloses the commission of an offence under CMA. We recognise other persons may have information on whether CII owners are complying with their obligations specified in Part 3 of the Bill, and we want to encourage the disclosure of such information to the Commissioner. Clause 45 provides for the protection of these informers in relation to proceedings for an offence under Part 3 of the Bill. As cybersecurity risks become more widespread, the demand for credible cybersecurity services will grow. Some cybersecurity services can be sensitive because the service providers performing them can have significant access into their clients’ computer systems and networks and gain a deep understanding of the cybersecurity vulnerabilities.”
“The Commissioner may, under clause 20(5), take possession of any computer or equipment without the owner’s consent for the purpose of further examination and analysis, if the Commissioner is satisfied that: (a) this is necessary for the purpose of the investigation; (b) there is no less disruptive method of achieving the purpose of the investigation; and (c) after consultation with the owner, and after considering his business and operational needs, the benefit from doing so outweighs the detriment caused to him. Such powers are necessary given the potential impact from serious cybersecurity threats and incidents, which can disrupt our essential services, potentially cause physical damage and harm, and affect our economy and our way of life. The Bill clearly spells out how these powers may be exercised. These powers are calibrated and there are safeguards built into the Bill, such as what I have just described. The maximum penalty under clause 20(7) is $25,000 fine or two years’ imprisonment or both, for offences, such as failure without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction or requirement of an incident response officer, under clause 20(2)(b) or (c). Clause 23 allows the Minister to authorise or direct any person or organisation to take measures for the purpose of countering serious and imminent threats. Clause 23 is a re-enactment with slight modifications of section 15A of CMCA. This section will be repealed. CMCA will correspondingly be renamed as the Computer Misuse Act, or CMA in short, at the same time that the Cybersecurity Bill is passed. The offences and penalties under clause 23 are the same as those under section 15A of CMCA. The Bill recognises that information disclosed to CSA under the Bill is often confidential.”
“But because of the interconnected nature of computer systems, the powers will also be used for investigating major cybersecurity threats and incidents on computer systems that are not CII, for example, large-scale cyberattacks affecting multiple sectors. It is not our intent to use these powers to respond to each and every cybersecurity threat or incident in Singapore, as computer owners are ultimately responsible for the cybersecurity of their own computers. Clause 19 allows the Commissioner to request persons to furnish specified information that is necessary for the investigation of cybersecurity threats or incidents, for the purpose of: (a) assessing their impact or potential impact; (b) preventing any or further harm arising from the same cybersecurity incident; and (c) preventing a further cybersecurity incident. The maximum penalty under clause 19 is $5,000 or six months’ imprisonment or both, for offences, such as willfully misstating information or refusing to provide required information without reasonable excuse. Clause 20 allows the Commissioner to authorise incident response officers to exercise more intrusive investigative powers as are necessary to investigate and prevent serious cybersecurity threats or incidents. For example, the Commissioner may require the owner of a computer to scan the computer for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Clause 20(3) prescribes a set of criteria for determining what constitutes a "serious" cybersecurity threat or incident, such as when it creates a risk of significant harm being caused to a CII.”