Yip Hon Weng
Singapore
“But we must also keep building our trust. It is the only infrastructure a small country cannot afford to lose. Every generation since Independence has earned our place in the world. Our responsibility is to see that the next generation is given the chance to do the same.”
“It can reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted financial centre, a gateway to Asia and a platform for long-term growth. But at the end of the day, we should also be clear about how success will be measured in practical terms. How much incremental daily trading volume are we seeking to generate?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. While the US dollar remains dominant, some economists have suggested that the global monetary system may gradually become more fragmented and multi-polar over time.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Given reports that some firms are slowing workforce expansion due to cost pressures due to the situation in the Middle East, has MOM observed any corresponding shift in firms hiring preferences between local workers and our foreign workforce?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Many Singaporeans are already facing rising premiums year after year. As we have seen recently, even with cheaper riders, base premiums continue increasing. So, households may still have to pay more overall.”
“Because this is not just a technology transition, it is a workforce transition. The establishment of the Tripartite Jobs Council is an important step in ensuring that this alignment happens in practice. Technology will move. Markets will adapt. But we must be clear about the future we are building.”
The complete record
Every one of 873 lines we hold for Yip Hon Weng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 18.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State of his reply. My concern is really about road safety, especially when many of these drivers do not have valid driving licences. What measures are in place to hold employers accountable for ensuring that their commercial vehicle drivers possess valid licences? And has the Ministry considered implementing stricter penalties for companies that fail to comply with these regulations? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions and also for the suggestions he made relating to how we can work with the employers. Indeed, TP has already been working with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on this issue and will continue to do so, such as through tapping on their outreach channels and also engaging industry stakeholders, such as those in the food delivery and goods delivery sectors. This is regardless of whether it is the driver or the employer of the driver who committed the offence, because the penalties that are upon the driver also apply to any person who employs or permits another person to drive a motor vehicle on the road without a valid licence. So, we continue to engage the employers and also would want to remind them that at the end of the day, it is about road safety as well. We are very concerned about this spike, so we will continue to engage the community, the stakeholders and at the same time, enhance our enforcement efforts and in reaching out to the people.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I understand it is only 1% but considering the take-up of such services, and I am more concerned about youths and young adults, and the growing popularity of BNPL schemes, does MAS foresee the necessity for stricter regulatory frameworks beyond the existing Code of Conduct? And what proactive steps are being considered to adapt to potential future challenges posed by BNPL schemes?”
“And strengthen support for caregivers, by introducing caregiver co-working hubs, enhancing training allowances and developing a one-stop digital support platform to ease their caregiving burden. Each of these proposals is not just a policy tweak. They are essential steps toward an age-inclusive Singapore. And just as this Budget takes bold steps exploring nuclear energy for resilience, strengthening our economic foundations, we, too, must be bold in rethinking how we care for our seniors. Because the question before us is not whether we can do better, but whether we will. We cannot afford to wait. The super-aged society is not a distant future – it is already here. We must build now, not later. We must invest now, not regret later. Let us not wait until we ourselves are old before we realise what we should have done today. Let us choose wisely and let us act boldly. Let us build a Singapore where every senior is valued – not as a burden, but as a pillar of our society. This is the Singapore they built. This is the Singapore we must now build for them. I support the Budget.”
“More funding to help caregivers gain professional certification in dementia care, physiotherapy and mental health support, so that they can provide better care, and even transition into new career paths. And third, a One-Stop Digital Support Platform. A streamlined online hub where caregivers can access respite care, financial aid and training resources, all in one place. Caregivers do the heavy lifting, yet their sacrifices often go unnoticed. Let us change that. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, our seniors have given their best years to Singapore. They built our homes, our industries, our institutions. They worked tirelessly, often without complaint, to give their children – us – a better life. Their sacrifices shaped the Singapore we enjoy today. Now, as they enter their golden years, the question before us is simple: will we repay their dedication with policies that enable them to live with dignity, security and purpose? Or will they be left behind, expected to navigate old age alone? This is not just about economic sustainability. It is about the kind of society we choose to be. If we want to build a Singapore that truly respects and uplifts our seniors, we must act decisively. Empower our seniors to work as long as they choose, by tackling ageism in hiring, expanding wage support and redesigning workplaces to be inclusive of older workers. Ensure seniors can age in place with dignity by prioritising direct lift access in ageing estates, expanding senior-friendly housing options and reimagining inter-generational living spaces where seniors and young people can thrive together.”
“The Lift Access Housing Grant sounds good on paper, but in reality? Moving is expensive. It is disruptive. And for many, it means leaving behind a home filled with decades of memories. So, let us fix this. I propose a Special Lift Retrofit Fund to explore compact lift solutions for blocks without direct lift access. No senior should be forced to relocate just to move freely in their own community. But we need to move further. Projects like Kampung Admiralty and Bukit Batok's community care apartments are good, but they are just a drop in the ocean. Where is the urgency? We need a faster rollout. We should repurpose unused public buildings, such as the former Henderson Primary School, to create new senior-friendly housing. And let us think bigger. Why not build inter-generational living spaces where seniors and young residents co-exist meaningfully? University students could get subsidised rent in exchange for community engagement. Older adults could mentor, share skills and build relationships with younger generations. Everyone benefits. The ideas exist. What we need is action. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to talk about caregivers, the invisible backbone of our ageing society. Many juggle work and caregiving, sacrificing their own well-being to care for ageing loved ones. We appreciate the enhancements to the Home Caregiving Grant, but let us be honest – it is a small step. We need more structural support. I propose three solutions. First, Caregiver Co-working Hubs. Imagine a place where caregivers can work remotely or upskill while their loved ones receive care. Co-located eldercare and co-working spaces can make this possible. Let us pilot it. Second, an Enhanced Caregiver Training Allowance.”
“Let us introduce a "Gold Standard Certification" for age-friendly employers, with tax incentives or public recognition. Let us reward companies that walk the talk. Second, training must be relevant. The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme is a start, but let us get real – how many seniors will sit through generic digital courses? We need targeted modules in areas like caregiving and gig economy skills. For instance, seniors can be trained as digital assistants to help SMEs onboard e-commerce. Training should be bite-sized, accessible in community centres, not buried under layers of red tape. Finally, we must deal with hiring bias. The upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation should explicitly penalise age discrimination in recruitment. And we need a mindset shift. Let us run a national campaign showcasing seniors excelling in different sectors, not as an afterthought, but as an expectation. Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, housing. Ageing-in-place is not just about preference. It is about dignity. But our current housing policies may nort be keeping pace. Take direct lift access. During Question Time last week, multiple Members raised this issue, and for good reason. In Yio Chu Kang, Blocks 642 and 648 at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 still have no direct lift access for some units. The so-called "half-landing solution" from 2008 is no longer adequate. Seniors with mobility issues struggle daily. I have raised this issue before. While I acknowledge the Minister's concerns about cost-effectiveness and technical constraints, I have to ask: are these considerations more important than the daily hardship of our seniors? Residents feel frustrated, even betrayed. Some say they feel "cheated" – paying for upgrades, only to find themselves still trapped in their own homes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past four years, I have stood in this House to speak on the challenges our seniors face. I have filed question after question, made speech after speech, because the realities of an ageing society are not a distant problem. They are here. Now. Singapore is rapidly becoming a super-aged society. Our fertility rate remains low. Fewer workers will support more retirees. We talk about sustainability all the time, but if we do not act boldly now, the burden on future generations will be unsustainable. This Budget takes steps in the right direction – the Home Caregiving Grant increase and the extension of the Senior Employment Credit are welcome. But there are still some blind spots. Today, I will focus on three urgent areas: keeping seniors meaningfully employed; expanding housing options so they can age in place; and strengthening support for caregivers. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, employment is not just about making ends meet. It gives seniors purpose, dignity and connection. Many want to work – not because they have to, but because they feel healthy enough to contribute. Yet, despite all our rhetoric about senior employment, ageism is still deeply embedded in our hiring culture. The unspoken belief that older workers are "less productive" persists. And while policies, like the Senior Employment Credit help, they do not address the fundamental issue: workplaces are still not designed for an ageing workforce. So, what must change? First, we need businesses to take the lead in creating age-inclusive workplaces. Existing schemes, like the Productivity Solutions Grant, can be expanded to reward firms that redesign roles for senior workers – whether through flexible work, job-sharing or phased retirement.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. I have two short supplementary questions. Given the tension between ensuring accessibility and guarding against misuse of funds, could the Ministry explain how it balances the need for swift disbursement of ComCare funds, with the implementation of stringent checks to prevent wrongful claims? And what measures are in place to ensure that legitimate applicants are not inadvertently disadvantaged by these processes.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I declare that I work in a global investment firm based in Singapore. I am glad that the Ministry has emphasised compliance with international trade rules, and that Singapore takes our obligations seriously. Could the Minister elaborate on the safeguards in place, to prevent companies from using Singapore as a conduit to bypass US export restrictions, especially in light of heightened US-China trade tensions? And how does the Ministry balance these safeguards with ensuring that we remain an attractable destination for businesses?”
“Let us work together to build a Singapore where every family feels supported, valued and empowered. Because when our families succeed, Singapore succeeds and that is a vision worth fighting for. Thank you and I support the original Motion.”
“We need to rebuild that village and we can do it by creating networks of care that provide families with the support they need. One proposal is to expand respite care initiatives. We must provide regular breaks for caregivers, whether through in-home services or respite care facilities, so they can recharge and continue providing quality care. We should also enhance training for caregivers. Let us partner with community organisations to offer accessible training for grandparents and other informal caregivers, equipping them with the skills to care for both children and seniors. We should also promote inter-generational mentorship programmes. Let us create initiatives that connect young parents with experienced caregivers, building bonds that strengthen families and communities. In addition, we should further incentivise volunteerism in caregiving, enabling neighbours to support one another through organised networks where everyone pitches in. When we support one another, we make our communities stronger. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the heart of all of this is one simple truth: families are the foundation of our nation. When we make sure that every family has a home, we provide them with the stability they need to thrive. When we create work-life balance, we give them the time they need to connect, to grow and to nurture relationships. When we rebuild the village of support, we give them strength. The strength to face life's challenges together. But we cannot and should not stop there. The tasks we have discussed today are big, but they are not beyond us. They are essential for the future of our nation because the strength of our families determines the strength of our country. So, let us act. Let us think creatively.”
“So, let us ask ourselves, should we rethink the time children spend in structured settings? Could part-time childcare or more flexible arrangements provide the balance our children need? I have some proposals: promote family-friendly workplace policies, like staggered hours, hybrid work and perhaps even four-day work weeks to give parents more time with their children. The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Working Arrangement Requests are a positive step and we should encourage more adoption by employers and employees. We should promote activities that unite families. Invest in community programmes that encourage family bonding through sports, arts, crafts and local events. It is about creating genuine connections, not just "quality time". Offer more subsidies for family-oriented events and activities. By making cultural and recreational experiences more accessible, we can ensure that all families, no matter their income, have the opportunity to spend valuable time together. And let us not forget the moments that truly strengthen relationships are the simple and everyday moments. They do not come from over-scheduled calendars. They come from being present, together. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been said that it takes a village to raise a child. But for many families today, it feels that village is no longer there. Grandparents, neighbours and extended family have always played a critical role in supporting families. But, too often, they are doing so without formal recognition or support. Many also lead busy lives. While grandparents once minded children in their retirement, they now continue working to fund retirement. Some are caregivers to their spouses. The result is that many families are left to navigate the challenges of caregiving on their own.”
“Consequently, they are unable to marry and start a family due to the lack of affordable housing options. This scenario is not unique. I am sure that many of my fellow Members of Parliament have encountered similar cases. So, what can we do about this? First, we need to index housing grants to resale market prices. As prices rise, grants should rise too, ensuring that young families can still access the support they need to achieve home ownership. Second, let us shorten the BTO waiting times. I recognise that this is already an MND priority. But we need to push even harder, considering new construction techniques and focusing on building homes for young families, first and foremost. Third, to support young couples waiting for new homes, we should expand affordable rental housing options. This can be achieved by relaxing the criteria or increasing the supply of the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme. We should also explore co-living spaces for young families and multi-generational housing models that not only make homeownership more attainable but also foster stronger community bonds. We cannot wait. Every young family deserves a home, a stable foundation upon which to build their future. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point is about work flexibility and family time. Work is a big part of life. But so is family. So, let us ask ourselves, how do we strike the right balance? With the increase in workplace flexibility, many of us now have more choices. But how will we use that time? Will we simply rush from one enrichment class to the next or will we slow down and focus on the value of time spent together, just being a family? A study recently reported that preschoolers spending over 40 hours a week in childcare may see their academic performance dip.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, families are the backbone of our society. They are where we learn our values, build our dreams and create the future we all share. When families are strong, our nation is strong. And when families struggle, we all feel it because we are all connected. As a father of five, I have experienced the joy, the pride and yes, the challenges that come with raising children. It is one of life's greatest gifts, but also one of its greatest responsibilities. And for too many families in Singapore today, those challenges are becoming harder to bear. So, today, let us talk about what our families truly need. The things that matter most: a home, a sense of security, time to nurture relationships and a community to lean on. These are not just policy issues. They are the foundation of a thriving society and they demand our attention. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a home is more than four walls and a roof over our heads. It is where we lay down our roots. It is where families grow, support one another and build their futures. But for far too many young Singaporeans, the dream of home ownership may be slipping further out of reach. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] In 2024, HDB resale prices experienced a significant increase of 9.6%, almost double the previous year's rise. Additionally, there was a record sale of 328 million-dollar flats within a single quarter. These trends highlight not only escalating property prices but also growing concerns among young families aiming to secure housing in our nation. A resident recently shared her predicament with me: she and her boyfriend intend to marry, but their combined income slightly exceeds the eligibility limit for a new BTO flat. On the other hand, it is insufficient to purchase a resale flat from the open market.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Considering the potential stigma and misconceptions associated with ketamine due to its history as a recreational drug, what initiatives will the Ministry undertake to educate the public and healthcare professionals about its therapeutic use in depression? And how will these efforts help in mitigating societal concerns and promoting informed acceptance?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. Has the Ministry conducted or considered conducting longitudinal studies to track the long-term outcomes of students of various income backgrounds, particularly in relation to their access to private tuition and subsequently social mobility? Secondly, are there efforts to build confidence in our public education system's ability to meet diverse learning needs without external supplications, such as private tuition?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. My supplementary questions pertain to the guidance on screen use in children. It provides comprehensive recommendations and I thank the Minister for sharing that there are various platforms available to share resources with parents. The first supplementary question is what tailored support systems are in place to assist parents from diverse backgrounds in overcoming some of the challenges in following these guidelines. And number two, given the rapidly evolving digital landscape, how does the Ministry ensure that the guidance and the guidelines remain relevant?”
“We must make it clear, now and always, that racism has no place here. Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony is not a static achievement. It is a living, breathing reality that requires constant care, constant work. This Bill is an important step, but it is only the beginning. Today, I have raised in my speech questions that we must answer together: first, how do we ensure that our efforts to protect harmony does not come at the expense of meaningful, honest dialogue and freedom of expression? Second, how do we safeguard our openness to the world without allowing foreign influence to undermine our unity? Third, how do we ensure that the CRI is more than just a programme, but a true opportunity for understanding and healing? And lastly, how do we engage every member of our community in the ongoing work of nurturing racial harmony? Let us remember that true harmony is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about building connections, about recognising our shared humanity, acknowledging our differences and yet, seeing what unites us. Singapore is often hailed as a model of multiracial harmony. But models cannot stay static. They must evolve, just as we must. We owe it to ourselves, to our children and to our future generations to keep moving forward – towards a Singapore where every individual feels seen, heard and valued. This Bill gives us the tools to make that vision a reality. But it is up to us to inspire the kind of harmony that goes beyond legislation, to inspire the kind of harmony that lives in the hearts and minds of every Singaporean. Let us legislate for harmony, but let us also live it. Let us empower every Singaporean to not just be a passive observer, but an active guardian of the harmony we hold so dear. I support the Bill.”
“Listening to people's lived experiences can make our policies stronger. How will the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony work with communities on the ground? Solutions must feel inclusive and co-created, not imposed from above. Education is critical too. How can we make public awareness campaigns engaging for everyone to understand their role in maintaining harmony? Empowered communities are harmonious communities. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's journey towards racial harmony has not been without its challenges. The painful lessons of the 1950s and 1960s – the racial unrest, the scars of the Maria Hertogh riots – serve as stark reminders of how fragile harmony can be. But they also gave rise to a commitment, a collective will, to build something stronger, something lasting. We are here today because of the hard work, the courage and the vision of those who came before us, who understood that racial harmony is not just a hope, it is a necessity. We have come far. The 2023 Gallup World Poll ranked us first among 135 countries as a great place for racial minorities to live – 92% of those polled said they felt welcomed. Yet, we cannot let these positive numbers lull us into complacency. The 2024 MDDI poll also reminds us that nearly half of our fellow Singaporeans still see racism as a problem and more than half have experienced racial insensitivity online. These are not just statistics. They are a call to action. We must continue to push forward. We must strive for an environment where every Singaporean, whether born here or new to our shores, understands that racial harmony is not just a policy – it is a shared responsibility. There is no place in Singapore for the biases that divide us.”
“Are there overlapping provisions and, if so, how will both pieces of legislation complement one another? Clarity is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of compliance requirements. Finally, how do we measure the effectiveness of these safeguards in Part 4? Regular reviews and transparent monitoring will be necessary to ensure the measures effectively strengthen racial harmony without hindering meaningful international partnerships or discouraging our community's engagement with global networks. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am particularly encouraged by the CRI in clause 41. Offering an alternative to prosecution is a progressive step, but it also raises a few questions too. How do we decide who qualifies for this programme? And how will it address the underlying prejudices or misunderstandings that led to the offense? We should also evaluate its impact. Will participants truly understand the importance of racial harmony or will they simply view it as another box to tick? Community involvement is key. Will grassroots leaders and organisations play a role in shaping or running these programmes? Their involvement could bring authenticity and trust to the process. What happens if someone does not complete the programme? Will there be room for appeals or second chances? And how does this initiative fit into the overall Bill? Could it serve as a softer, community-based complement to the more stringent Restraining Orders? Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, policies alone do not build harmony. People do. That is why constructive engagement with the public is so important. Part 5 of the Bill outlines oversight mechanisms. Will there be regular public consultations to ensure these measures remain relevant and effective?”
“Harmony thrives when people see each other as neighbours, not strangers. How can this legislation inspire bridge-building between communities? Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's openness is undoubtedly a strength, but it also makes us vulnerable to external risks. Part 4 of the Bill rightly addresses the challenge of foreign influence. However, it is critical that we proceed carefully to avoid unintended consequences. A recurring phrase in the Bill states that "it is for the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused took all reasonable steps to comply." This wording imposes a significant burden of proof on individuals, particularly volunteers who already juggle public service responsibilities. The penalties involved are substantial and this could inadvertently discourage Singaporeans and PRs from stepping forward to take on leadership roles in local associations. How can we ensure that this legislation does not unintentionally deter participation in community and cultural leadership? Moreover, how do we define and differentiate "foreign influence" from "global collaboration"? Many local associations maintain deep historical ties with overseas organisations, preserving our cultural heritage over decades, if not centuries. Could the broad definition of "foreign affiliation" unintentionally create barriers for such groups? Would this legislation impact non-profit or cultural organisations with harmless international connections? Transparent and proportionate enforcement will be critical to allaying such concerns. Additionally, I seek clarification on how this Bill will interact with the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (or FICA) passed in 2021.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is timely and necessary. Racial harmony is not something we can take for granted. It is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about creating a society where we all feel at home. This Bill possesses the potential to achieve its objectives. However, its success depends on how it is implemented and perceived by the community. I have some clarifications. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications about the racial content Restraining Orders in Part 3 of the Bill. These are important tools. But like all tools, they need to be handled carefully. The power of racial content Restraining Orders is undeniable, but with that power comes an inherent challenge: balancing enforcement with the preservation of freedom of expression. How do we ensure that these orders are not misused to stifle legitimate discourse? These includes artistic expressions, like parodies, satire or critiques of societal issues that touch on race. While some content may indeed cross the line, how do we draw boundaries between harmful speech and those forms of expression that are vital for a vibrant and open society? Could the current approach inadvertently silence voices that challenge the status quo in a way that promotes reflection and growth? How will we ensure that these laws do not become a tool for shutting down uncomfortable but necessary conversations about race and identity? Education is as critical as enforcement. Are there plans to pair these measures with public campaigns that teach empathy, respect and dialogue? Racial harmony is not just about avoiding offence. It is about understanding each other's struggles and aspirations. Beyond penalties, how does this Bill encourage connection? Laws alone do not build harmony.”
“Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 173 empowers the Ministry to introduce food-related regulations targeting non-communicable diseases. While I commend this focus on public health, I question the necessity of separating these provisions from the SOFA. Consolidating them under SOFA instead could streamline the regulatory framework and reduce complexity for businesses and consumers. Could the Minister elaborate more on why the current approach was chosen and how this enhances clarity or efficiency? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the FSSB is a step in the right direction. However, its success depends on addressing key concerns. First, we must ensure that the proposed MSR supports rather than hinders our local farmers' efforts toward the 30 by 30 goal. Second, enforcement of personal food import allowances must be practical and clearly communicated to avoid unfair penalties. Third, food donation initiatives should be encouraged, not discouraged, by ensuring sufficient legal protection for volunteers and donors. Additionally, consolidating regulations on public health under existing legislation like SOFA could simplify compliance. More importantly, we must remain mindful of affordability for Singaporeans. As food costs rise, any new measures should prioritise accessibility to ensure no resident is left behind in our pursuit of safety and security. I urge the Minister to address these points to ensure that it strengthens our food security, promotes public health and upholds the values of affordability and community solidarity. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“If individuals buy more than they can consume, what are their options? Would they be penalised for reselling excess items, or would gifting or donating be permissible? Clarity on enforcement mechanisms is critical to prevent undue penalisation of well-meaning individuals. I would suggest that SFA collaborate with ecommerce platforms like Shopee and Carousell to monitor and regulate transactions effectively, while minimising inconvenience to residents. Mr Speaker, Sir, my third clarification is on food donations. Clause 144 extends food safety regulations to donations, ensuring that all consumed food is safe. However, we must ensure this does not inadvertently discourage food donation efforts, especially those supported by community initiatives like our Yio Chu Kang food rescue programme. Our programme, which redistributes surplus food to over 200 residents with the help of student volunteers, thrives under the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects donors from liability. Could the Minister clarify how clause 144 interacts with this Act? Will volunteers and donors continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights? Without assurances, these efforts to reduce food waste and support the community may be impacted. Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill's tiered penalty framework as stated in clauses 29 to 31 and 144 to 146 to address repeat offenders and negligent food handling. However, I caution against applying penalties in ways that deter volunteerism or community-based food rescue. Could the Minister confirm whether exemptions or safeguards will be in place to protect well-intended individuals contributing to food security?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a significant step forward in safeguarding Singapore's food security and public health. However, I would like to seek clarifications on several aspects to ensure that the legislation is both effective and considerate of residents' concerns. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 20 introduces the MSR for essential food items like rice. It also mandates farm management plans for local farms. While these provisions aim to strengthen food security, I urge the Minister to address the potential financial burden on our local farms. Will these measures lead to significant cost increases for farmers, potentially disincentivising local agricultural investments? Singapore's 30 by 30 initiative, which aims for 30% local food production by 2030, is an ambitious and important goal. However, if compliance with MSR or farm management plans under clauses 21 to 24 increases operational costs substantially, we risk undermining the very farms we seek to support. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to alleviate these financial pressures? For example, are there plans for subsidies, grants or technical support to help farmers comply without jeopardising their livelihoods? Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also increases the personal food import allowance to 15 kilogrammes across all categories as stated in clause 44. This is a commendable step towards flexibility. However, the prohibition on selling such imports raises enforcement challenges. Given the sheer volume of personal imports and the rise of online transactions, does SFA have sufficient resources and intelligence capabilities to enforce this regulation? Additionally, clause 160 prohibits selling personally imported food. However, it is unclear about inadvertent oversupply.”
“My clarification is directed to MDDI and it pertains to scams and targeted communications. How does the Ministry plan to communicate the approach for the use of NRIC numbers to hard-to-reach segments of our society, like less tech-savvy individuals, such as seniors? And besides leveraging on examples of incorrect uses of NRIC, what other methods will be used for education, given that this is not really a very easy policy to explain? Would the Ministry also consider using Silver Generation Office or the SG Digital Office to do house visits and sort of explain this to seniors?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her response. Does the Minister of State agree that residents may feel anxious and unfairly treated if insurance claims are denied due to technicalities, especially in cases where hospital bills arrive late, causing delays in submission? Furthermore, does the Minister of State acknowledge that policyholders are often at a disadvantage in negotiating with insurers as the illness becomes a pre-existing condition once diagnosed, limiting their ability to switch to a more accommodating provider? And can institutions step in to assist residents in appealing to insurers? Additionally, can MOH, as the regulator and key player in the healthcare system, play a more active role in helping patients negotiate with insurance companies in such situations?”
“The team included not just engineers, they also had anthropologists and historians. This diversity led to groundbreaking solutions, such as adapting ancient bridge designs for a reliable landing system. As highlighted in Matthew Syed's "Rebel Ideas", this story exemplifies how embracing diverse minds leads to innovative breakthroughs. It shows us that diversity is not just about representation, it is about creating better and more effective solutions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill is an essential step forward in fostering fairness and inclusivity in Singapore's workplaces. It tackles the challenges faced by our senior workers, breaks down barriers for those with mental health conditions, provides clarity on religious exemptions and offers SMEs a thoughtful approach to compliance. But our work does not end here. This Bill is a call to action for all stakeholders. To employers, value experience, embrace inclusivity and create workplaces where everyone has an equal chance to succeed. To employees, speak up, seek support and encourage understanding. And to all of us, let us ensure that this Bill does not just remain a set of rules, but becomes a foundation for real change in our workplaces and in the lives of all Singaporeans. I support the Bill.”
“Clearer communication will help avoid division and ensure that these provisions are fairly and consistently applied, preserving the harmony we value in Singapore. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I appreciate the phased implementation of this Bill to give SMEs more time to adapt, we must guard against unintended loopholes. The exemption for companies with fewer than 25 employees, as mentioned in clause 4(1), could inadvertently encourage some employers to keep their workforce artificially small to avoid compliance costs. To mitigate this risk, I propose that we phase out the exemption as businesses grow. Alternatively, we could offer financial incentives and practical guidance to ease the compliance burden for SMEs. Grants for workplace upgrades and training programmes would help SMEs adopt fair practices without placing undue strain on them. Similarly, reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities should be addressed. While larger companies can absorb the costs of accessibility, smaller businesses may struggle. TAFEP's advisory and financial support will be critical to ensure that SMEs can create accessible and inclusive workplaces. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we look to the future, let me ask: what will the workforce or the workplace of tomorrow look like? How will it evolve to meet the challenges of an increasingly digital and AI-enabled world? The 2024 World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs report reveals that the workplace will be shaped by generative AI, digital transformation and the demand for constant upgrading. To thrive in this new world, we must harness the power of diversity. Diverse perspectives are no longer just a nice-to-have, they are the key to innovation and success. Take NASA's Mars Rover project, for example.”
“This is a critical step forward, recognising that mental well-being is as important as physical health. I am especially heartened that the Bill acknowledges mental health as a protected characteristic without requiring mandatory disclosure. This voluntary approach should persist as disclosure is only required when there is a measurable impact on performance. Otherwise, mandatory disclosure risks reinforcing stigma and deterring individuals from seeking employment or support. At the same time, we must handle mental health cases sensitively. The requirement for a formal diagnosis in cases of alleged discrimination is necessary to prevent abuse. However, the process should be handled with compassion and respect, ensuring that employees do not feel alienated or judged. I propose greater awareness and education for employers to dispel myths and on the benefits of accommodating employees with mental health conditions. Many of these individuals are highly capable when provided the right support. Training programmes can dispel myths about absenteeism and productivity and equip employers with practical solutions like flexible working hours or quiet spaces. Such measures will ensure mental health is no longer a barrier to success. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill's exemption for religious organisations as outlined in clause 23 acknowledges their unique roles. However, we need to clarify the scope of this exemption to avoid confusion. Many religious organisations run preschools, charities and welfare services that cater to people of all faiths. Does the exemption extend to these institutions? And if so, to what extent? To prevent misunderstandings, I urge the Minister to provide greater clarity on the necessity and limits of these exemptions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workplace Fairness Bill marks a pivotal moment in our journey towards inclusivity and fairness in our workplaces. However, I would like to offer some clarifications and suggestions that will help ensure its true impact. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is about our seniors in the workforce. Although age is explicitly protected under clause 8 of the Bill, many seniors still face what I term "covert discrimination". This refers to subtle biases, like dismissing their expertise or denying them growth opportunities, not the overt remarks like "you are too old for this job." In my Meet-the-People Sessions, seniors like Mr A, in his 50s, shared how their extensive experience is often overlooked in favor of younger, untested ideas. Mrs B recounted how she is offered fewer training opportunities, leaving her feeling stagnant and unvalued. These experiences, though often invisible, create significant barriers to equality. While the Bill addresses training opportunities and prohibits age discrimination, the real challenge lies in detection and resolution. Many seniors hesitate to approach HR, fearing they will be labelled as troublemakers. Small businesses may not even have formal HR departments to mediate such issues. To resolve this, we need alternative and non-confrontational channels that allow seniors to address concerns without fear of retaliation. These neutral spaces could facilitate honest dialogue, where employers explain challenges and employees share their feelings of exclusion. This will build trust, foster open communication and ensure that seniors' contributions are fully recognised. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the inclusion of mental health conditions as a protected characteristic under clause 16.”
“In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises have taught us the devastating impact of infectious diseases on lives, healthcare systems and economies. Resilience in public health is not just desirable, it is essential. The establishment of the CDA offers an opportunity to elevate Singapore’s public health defences. However, we must ensure it delivers on its promise. The CDA must unite and strengthen public health functions to benefit Singaporeans, ensure a smooth and morale-boosting transition for employees, retaining their expertise, collaborate effectively with agencies, like NEA, to address multi-dimensional health challenges and engage globally to stay ahead of emerging threats. The current health situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo underscores the urgency of proactive measures. Stricter health screenings and quarantine protocols for travelers from Africa or transit hubs in the Middle East are critical in shielding Singapore from potential risks. Over the past week, an outbreak of HMPV in China and Malaysia have also raised alarms globally. Most importantly, CDA must prepare Singapore to face "Disease X", a potentially unknown pathogen with pandemic potential. Our goal should not just be to respond effectively when the time comes but to anticipate, plan, and build a robust system which mitigates the worst outcomes. CDA must act with foresight, anticipate risks, coordinate responses and build trust with Singaporeans. This agency should not merely serve as a safety net, but as a proactive force that protects lives and inspires confidence. Let us seize this moment to set a new standard in public health. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Additionally, how will union representation be addressed as employees move from the civil service to a statutory board? How many will be affected? What safeguards are in place for those who may decline the transfer? Will their benefits be matched with continuity? How will the National Trades Union Congress be involved? Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, public health is not the sole responsibility of a single agency. It requires a whole-of-Government approach. CDA must work seamlessly with other agencies, like the National Environment Agency (NEA) to tackle challenges like dengue, which has both environmental and medical dimensions. How will the CDA and NEA collaborate? Could we see the formation of joint task forces or integrated data systems to enhance early detection and coordinated responses? Clear public communication is also critical during outbreaks. Will there be a single, unified messaging platform to ensure that Singaporeans receive accurate and timely information without confusion? Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, infectious diseases know no borders. We know from SARS and, most recently, COVID-19. I am glad to hear from the Minister of State just now that CDA will play an active role in global health initiatives to protect Singaporeans from external threats. How will the CDA work with international organisations, like the WHO, to share insights and access critical information? Will it participate in joint surveillance systems to identify emerging threats directly and early? Beyond immediate measures, will CDA advocate for stronger international regulations and lead global efforts in pandemic preparedness, including vaccine research and diagnostics?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to seek clarifications on the Bill establishing the CDA, a move aimed to bolster Singapore's defences against infectious diseases. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, how can Singaporeans be assured that the CDA will achieve results greater than the sum of its parts? By consolidating critical public health functions from three key institutions under one agency, we aim for efficiency and effectiveness. But the question remains. Will this restructuring translate into tangible public health benefits? Each of the existing entities hold deep expertise in areas like policy development, surveillance and operational responses. What mechanisms will ensure that the strengths of these institutions are fully leveraged under the CDA's umbrella? The CDA’s role as a coordinating authority is critical. On-the-ground work will continue to involve multiple players, including public institutions and private contractors. How will the Ministry ensure that CDA has the authority, resources and the tools to harmonise these efforts? Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have queries about the transfer of employees to CDA. A disruption in essential health services during this transition could have severe repercussions, especially if a disease outbreak occurs. What measures are in place to retrain and upskill employees for the broader mandates of CDA? Ensuring that the workforce is equipped with new skills will be vital for tackling emerging and complex diseases. The preservation of institutional knowledge is equally important. Employees who have led critical public health initiatives, such as vaccination drives, carry invaluable experience. How will their expertise be retained and their morale maintained during this transition?”
“Seniors and the digitally disadvantaged must not be left behind and cybersecurity measures must be in place to protect residents from scams. A hybrid approach during this transition is not just practical, it is essential to maintaining public confidence. Ultimately, this Bill is more than a collection of amendments. It is a commitment to protecting lives and livelihoods, especially those most vulnerable – our elderly, our low-wage workers – and those who depend on the road for their daily bread. Mdm Deputy Speaker, we owe it to our residents to get this right. Behind every traffic law is a family waiting for their loved ones to return home safely. Behind every enforcement action is a promise to uphold justice. And behind every decision we make here is the opportunity to build a road system that does not just move people but safeguards lives. I support this Bill.”
“Not every resident has email or the digital literacy to navigate online systems. Seniors, in particular, are at risk of being excluded. Using email for those ready and physical mail for others ensures fairness during the shift to a digital process. This dual system approach would be a practical way to cater to the diverse needs of our population. Scams is another significant concern. Fraudulent summonses could trick people into revealing sensitive information or paying bogus fines. We need robust safeguards to protect against this. Equally important is clear communication with the public about how to identify legitimate summonses. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill addresses three critical aspects of road safety: deterrence, enforcement and modernisation. Each is essential to creating a safer and fairer road traffic system for all. On dangerous driving, we must ensure penalties serve as a real deterrent while giving the Courts the discretion to impose sentences that match the severity of the harm caused. This flexibility recognises that driving is a complex task requiring skill, focus and experience, and that mistakes can happen even to the best of us. By striking this balance, we strengthen the rule of law while upholding fairness. On enforcement, empowering officers at checkpoints to combat drink driving is a necessary move. But it must be implemented with care, ensuring fairness, impartiality and efficiency. Clear guidelines and robust training are non-negotiable to maintain public trust. Leveraging technology can help minimise inconvenience for commuters. On modernisation, transitioning to digital summons delivery is a step forward, but we must ensure inclusivity.”
“Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, empowering immigration officers to conduct breath tests at checkpoints is a logical and necessary move. Drunk driving is a menace that knows no borders. But as with any enforcement, the devil is in the details. How will officers be trained to exercise their powers impartially? Residents have expressed concerns about potential profiling, which could erode public trust. Clear guidelines and robust training must be non-negotiable. Another worry is the perennial issue of delays at checkpoints, especially since our Woodlands Checkpoint is one of the busiest land crossing points in the world. Many people commute across these borders daily for work or family obligations. Adding breath tests could slow things down. Can the Ministry leverage technology to speed up the process while ensuring strong enforcement? The goal must always be to achieve safety without undue inconvenience. Likewise, how does the Ministry plan to deal with foreign vehicles that may have been caught committing traffic offences, especially speeding, illegal parking or beating the red light? How many foreign vehicles have been caught with traffic offences in 2023 or 2024 alone? Clause 2 allows for ICA to deny entry or exit for vehicles which have offences. How does the ICA plan to enforce these fines and ensure that they are paid? Across the border, our neighbours have already used various methods to ensure that Singaporean drivers pay up their fines. Are we doing something similar considering that our roads also have a number of foreign vehicles plying them? Do we similarly enforce our laws on these foreign vehicles? Third, Mdm Deputy Speaker, digitalising summons delivery may be a step into the future, but we must ensure no one is left behind in this transition.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have a few clarifications on the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to ensure that the changes serve our residents effectively and achieve their intended outcomes. First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, dangerous driving has no place on our roads. It is not just a rule of law. It is a matter of life and death. The proposed amendments aim to strike a balance between deterrence and proportionality, giving the Courts more flexibility in sentencing. This is a good step forward, but it raises some questions. When this Bill was announced, Yio Chu Kang residents have asked me, "Are we sending the wrong message? Are we going soft on offenders?" Removing mandatory minimum sentences might unintentionally be perceived as leniency even if that is not the intent. This could undermine public trust and undo years of effort to foster safer driving habits. Residents are also concerned about consistency and fairness. How will the Ministry ensure that sentencing decisions are equitable and reflect the severity of offences? How will our Courts be guided on the minimum sentences for offences, now that it is removed? Could lighter sentences also embolden risky behaviour? Could they lead to more repeat offenders? These are real risks that we cannot ignore and may be exploited by offenders. The Ministry must monitor the impact of these changes to ensure they do not compromise public safety. Education is just as critical as enforcement. Stronger penalties should go hand in hand with public campaigns to hammer home the message – reckless driving destroys lives. Let us make it clear that dangerous driving will not be tolerated. Clear communication about the gravity of penalties is essential to maintain public trust in our justice system.”
“Together, we can create a society where scams find no foothold and every resident feels safe, supported and empowered to protect themselves and their loved ones. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“We must therefore act with care. Temporarily freezing someone's account is a serious measure. It should only be justified by the need to protect vulnerable individuals. To mitigate this, we must prioritise robust training and resources for bank employees and artificial intelligence (AI) systems to minimise errors in account restrictions. A streamlined, human-centered appeals process is also vital to address disputes swiftly and fairly. We must also be mindful of unintended consequences. Victims who feel unsupported might turn to unsafe alternatives, like loan sharks, out of desperation. Furthermore, disputes involving family members over money can escalate and create long-lasting tensions. This is why safeguards are essential. Neutral support systems, such as community networks and counsellors, must be in place to guide victims and help them recover from such experiences. For many seniors, the impact of scams goes beyond financial loss. They often suffer a loss of dignity and confidence, leaving them too ashamed to seek help. Young people, too, have not been spared. In some tragic cases, falling prey to scams has led to severe mental health issues and even suicide. To truly protect Singaporeans, we must act fast, be fair and address the root causes of scams. Loneliness, financial insecurity and lack of support create vulnerabilities that scammers exploit. These underlying issues must also be tackled to build resilience in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill must be supported by a strong commitment to act swiftly, fairly and wisely. It must protect the most vulnerable segments of our society, while ensuring interventions are timely, precise and carefully managed.”
“While that saves time, what about those who struggle to explain their case in writing? Should they not get a chance to speak, especially for complex cases? And under clause 7(6), the Commissioner's decision is final. To build trust, could we introduce regular reviews? Or publish anonymised outcomes to show that the system is working fairly? Transparency matters. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill places heavy responsibilities on banks, and rightly so. But we must be careful not to overwhelm them. Clause 6 imposes a $3,000 fine for non-compliance. Is that enough to deter negligence? Or do we need stricter penalties? More importantly, banks need resources. It is not always easy to distinguish a scam from a legitimate transaction. Can we provide clear guidelines, training or support, especially for smaller banks? Penalties alone would not recover lost savings. Prevention is the real solution. Let us work closely with banks to stop scams before they happen. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, scams do not stop at our borders. Many originate overseas, where our laws have no jurisdiction. What can we do about that? Could Singapore lead efforts to create a regional task force? A shared intelligence system could make it harder for these syndicates to operate. What if we built a global registry of known scam accounts? This could help authorities and financial institutions block scammers faster. And while clause 9 protects banks acting in good faith, we must ensure this does not lead to complacency. Especially for overseas transactions, we cannot leave any gaps. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a necessary and timely step in addressing the scam crisis. However, it is also highly intrusive, as it temporarily removes personal agency by restricting access to accounts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this Bill is a necessary step forward. But I have some clarifications to ensure it works as intended. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, when it comes to scams, speed is everything. Every minute counts. This Bill lets officers issue ROs to block suspicious transactions. But how fast can this happen? Imagine if someone's life savings were on the line. Minutes, even seconds, could make the difference. Can we move fast enough? Then, there is the question of scale. Scams today do not target one person – they hit hundreds, sometimes thousands, at once. Can our systems handle such a surge? Or will delays cost victims dearly? In Yio Chu Kang, I have had residents come to me, frustrated that their cases have not been followed up for weeks, even after the Police assured them that they would. Perhaps this is a symptom of the system being overwhelmed. If so, how do we address it? Delays like these can erode trust in our ability to protect victims. And what if the wrong account gets blocked? Mistakes can happen. How quickly can we fix them, so that innocent people are not left stranded? Prevention is just as important. Can we do more to educate the public? Let us make every Singaporean scam-wise. Let us turn them into scam-fighters who can protect themselves and their loved ones. Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, the appeals process in clause 7 is critical. But it needs to work for everyone. What about seniors who are not tech-savvy? Many seniors in Yio Chu Kang do not even use smartphones. If their account gets blocked, how can they appeal? Community networks, like grassroots organisations, must step up to help them. Then, there is fairness. Clause 7(5)(b) allows appeals to be decided based on documents alone – no hearings.”
“We have a strong stance against drugs and we want to make sure that we protect our people and we want to galvanise our stakeholders and resources within Singapore and outside Singapore, so that while we keep Singapore safe and secure, we keep the countries around us safe so that we are safe and we are able to provide more avenues for a good life for fellow Singaporeans.”
“It is about a partnership, we want to ensure that we keep all people safe and secure. However, you also see that youths in most of these countries are the groups that are being affected by controlled drugs. And the reasons we see from our studies are that at that age, you are more curious, you want to try. I have met youths who told me that no one is at fault. It is just them. Because of their curiosity, they looked at social media and the Internet, and they wanted to experience what addiction is like. We understand that these are the trends that youths are facing and that are coming into their mind. So, we have programmes and the IMC, which I have shared earlier, to see how, at the various fronts with the agencies as well as community partners, we can go upstream to share with youths the harms of drugs and what kind of pro-social activities and groups they can join to see how they can turn their lives towards positive avenues. Also, there are elements of peer pressure and there are inter-generational elements. At the National Committee on Prevention, Rehabilitation and Recidivism, we look at the different efforts to see how we can prevent offending and re-offending and it is also for youths. We want to see how we can find new ways and understand the issues better to come up with policies and also, at the same time, work with partners to enhance our efforts in this. This is an ongoing landscape and trend that will always change because of the different facets, different directions taken by different countries. But we are very clear in our stance.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and the Minister of State. I thought he gave a very clear response. I have two supplementary questions and both pertain to youths. First, with reports indicating that youths are aware of the illegality and health risks of vaping, but continue to engage in the practice, what specific measures are the Ministry implementing to address the apparent disconnect between awareness and behaviour among young people? Secondly, considering the evolving nature of substance abuse methods, what proactive steps are the Ministry taking to anticipate and address potential future trends in drug consumption among youths in Singapore? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. These are relevant issues that we need to address. So, what we do is that we work together with our relevant agencies, not only here, but also our counterparts. In fact, we have very close relationships with our counterparts because drugs move from outside Singapore. So, we also want to understand how it moves and also what kind of strategies are being adopted. My colleagues and I often meet our counterparts and we share intelligence. At the same time, we make sure that our main purpose is to protect Singaporeans and our country. But we know that it comes from overseas, as such, they are also interested to work with us to learn from us, how we do things. For example, recently, we had the drug Remembrance Day for the victims. Many of the countries have come forward, especially the ASEAN countries, and they want to learn from us and see how they can work together with us on this. So, this is not only about us learning from them. They also want to learn from us.”
“I urge the Ministry to provide the necessary clarifications and safeguards so that this Bill can truly protect the integrity of our courts while honouring the rights of our residents. Let us, together, build a justice system that inspires confidence and upholds the principles we all stand by. I support the Bill.”
“The blogger case I mentioned earlier sparked considerable debates, both locally and internationally, on freedom of expression and fairness in our legal system. Human rights organisations and international media outlets cited the case as an example of perceived suppression of free speech. This shows that striking a balance between upholding respect for the Judiciary and preserving public trust is not only delicate but essential. Therefore, what steps will the Government take to ensure these changes do not undermine public confidence in our justice system? Could more detailed public reporting on cases deemed manifestly groundless help clarify the rationale for these amendments? Transparency in how these provisions are applied could reinforce the public's understanding and trust in the system. A just society is built not only on the laws we enact, but on the public's trust in those laws and their fair and transparent application. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in strong support of the Administration of Justice Protection (Amendment) Bill. Its aims are praiseworthy. I believe these amendments will reinforce the backbone of our legal system. But to ensure its full impact, we must address the potential challenges it brings. As we implement these changes, let us make sure that they achieve a fair and balanced system, one that deters abuse without discouraging genuine claims, supports vulnerable residents, respects the role of our legal advisors and strengthens public trust in our Judiciary. This is a call for a justice system that is not just efficient, but compassionate and accessible to all Singaporeans.”
“Accountability is vital, but we must consider how this might affect lawyers' willingness to take up pro bono or challenging cases, particularly those with a public interest angle but uncertain outcomes. A case in 2022 illustrates this dilemma, where two lawyers were ordered to pay personal costs due to their conduct in a case. Their approach was deemed problematic as they introduced evidence piecemeal and at the last minute. These examples highlight the tension lawyers may face when advocating passionately for their clients. The Court's reaction highlights the necessity of adhering to procedural rules. However, it is also important to acknowledge that in critical cases, legal counsel might be driven to explore every possible option to advert potential miscarriages of justice. Should there be clearer guidelines for legal advisors on what constitutes "ought to have known" when assessing case merit, could heightened liability raise legal costs for residents as lawyers factor in greater risk? What recourse will residents have if they feel their lawyer has not accurately represented the risk of contempt under this amendment? Clarity is essential, not only for those seeking justice, but also for the legal professionals who guide them. This will help ensure fair, accessible and equitable representation for all. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to address public perception and trust in our legal system. While the amendments are well-intentioned, they could unintentionally create a sense of reduced access to justice amongst the public. Maintaining public confidence in our Court's accessibility and fairness is paramount.”
“What safeguards are in place to protect individuals who may unintentionally bring forward claims, later classified as groundless? Could these legislations deter residents, especially those with limited legal knowledge, from exercising their right to justice? And might these amendments dissuade pro bono lawyers from supporting disadvantaged residents due to potential repercussions? It is essential that as we curb misuse of the Court's time, we do not inadvertently silence legitimate cries for justice due to fears of unintended legal consequences. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns the potential impact on vulnerable residents. Stricter contempt provisions may disproportionately affect those who face financial or legal challenges, as they may feel the chilling effects of these amendments most acutely. Navigating the legal system can be daunting, even for those with resources. The risk of contempt charges may discourage self-represented litigants, especially those with sincere claims, from coming forward. How will these amendments protect those who lack the resources to fully understand legal complexities? Are there plans to conduct public education campaigns to help residents understand what constitutes a manifestly groundless claim? Additionally, how can community legal clinics and support services help mitigate this risk for residents? Ensuring access to justice requires that we balance curbing misuse while maintaining protections for the vulnerable. This is essential to uphold equitable access to our legal system for all residents. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my third concern addresses the role of legal advisors and the implications of holding them accountable for pursuing groundless claims.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides a timely and necessary response to the increasing misuse of our court processes. These abuses squander public resources and judicial time. They also hurt genuine victims who need fair and prompt resolutions. I am confident that the provisions in this Bill will booster the integrity of our judicial system. While I endorse the intent and spirit of this legislation, I would like to seek further clarifications on four key areas. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first concern is how stricter contempt of court laws might affect those with valid grievances. While I support the need to curb abusive litigation, we must be careful not to discourage individuals with genuine grievances from seeking justice. This requires a delicate balance. We must deter bad faith actors without dissuading those with sincere, if ultimately unsuccessful, claims. Take for instance, a recent case under current contempt laws. A blogger was charged with contempt for making unfounded accusations against the Judiciary. He implied that the Judiciary was swayed by the Government. The Court found that his statements had the potential to erode public trust in our Judiciary. This led to a contempt charge. I believe this case was ultimately shown to be a good use of the law. It highlights the fine line we tread between maintaining the integrity of our Courts and protecting freedom of expression. Addressing harmful and unsubstantiated allegations is undoubtedly important. Yet, we must be cautious that the tightening of contempt provisions does not stifle legitimate discourse. Thus, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification on how the amendments will differentiate between genuine claims, if even unsuccessful, and those deemed contemptuous.”