Hansard, Monday, 6 February 2023

1 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review the need for SG Arrival Card for returning Singaporeans and residents; (b) whether the information obtained from the health declaration are significant to support public health surveillance efforts; and (c) whether such information can already be obtained from data captured in the immigration and other Government systems.

Mr Speaker, the Member asked me a supplementary question on this topic during my Ministerial Statement at the last Sitting. I do not think I gave a full nor clear answer, so, I thank him for the opportunity to answer this now.

In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Health (MOH) reviewed our need for data collection at the borders and we decided to implement the digital SG Arrival Card system for purposes of disease control. Specifically, we want to guard against importing infectious diseases of concern, such as Yellow Fever, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Ebola.

The SG Arrival Card system resulted in a few changes from past practices. First, previously, only foreigners are required to submit health information on a physical card. Now, all travellers are required to submit a health declaration because all travellers are subject to the risk of infectious diseases – not just the foreign travellers.

Second, the mode of submission was digitalised – and I hope, became more convenient.

Third, the information required has been streamlined and simplified to only three questions to ascertain the risk of a traveller being infected with the current diseases of concern.

Specifically – if I may elaborate – one question was targeted at Yellow Fever transmission. Travellers at risk of Yellow Fever infection and do not have a valid relevant vaccination certificate are assessed and may be quarantined to protect against the risk of importation of Yellow Fever in Singapore. This is a serious matter for Singapore because the Aedes aegypti mosquito vector that spreads Yellow Fever is present in Singapore.

Another question is targeted at MERS-Coronavirus and Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers. Travelers suspected of being infected can be referred for further medical assessment and isolation if necessary.

These are dynamic information, based on their recent travel history and how they feel, and therefore, not captured in existing Government systems.

Mr Liang.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the further clarification. Just two quick questions. Firstly, does the Minister envisages this to be a permanent feature, this SG Arrival Card? And secondly, even if we were to stand down this procedure, does the Ministry see the readiness to re-activate this expeditiously, to be there? Meaning, if we were to stand down and then we need to re-activate it again, can the Ministry do it in a very expeditious way?

Thank you. The two questions are related. We reviewed this and we deemed this as a permanent feature. Of course, all features are reviewed from time to time. Yellow Fever, MERS – they have all become endemic diseases in their parts of the world. We do not want them to become endemic diseases in our part of the world, which therefore means that this is quite a permanent feature, that as of now, we feel is necessary, to prevent such diseases from coming into Singapore.

2 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the Ministry’s review of SPH Media Trust (SMT) following their admission of falsification of circulation data (a) what are the terms of reference of this review; (b) when did this review begin and when will it be completed; (c) what have the findings been so far; (d) whether the report will be made public; and (e) what are the conditions under which public funding to SMT will be removed or reduced.

3 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the alleged inconsistencies in circulation data at SPH Media Trust (SMT) (a) what is the status of the internal investigation and when will the detailed findings be made public; (b) what are the immediate corrective actions taken; and (c) how will this affect the Government’s long-term commitment to SMT.

4 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the overstated reporting of newspaper circulation data by SPH Media Trust (SMT) (a) what is the breakdown of discrepancy in circulation numbers for each of SMT’s publication titles; (b) what is the extent to which the vernacular language publications are affected; (c) whether there will be a fuller audit to cover the period of review prior to September 2020; and (d) how will the results of the audit and other investigations affect the Ministry’s committed funding of SMT in the future.

5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry will require SPH Media Trust (SMT) to disclose (i) the reasons why the inconsistencies in the daily circulation numbers of SMT's publications took a long time to be discovered and made public and (ii) what is being done to strengthen governance over such matters; and (b) how will these inconsistencies impact the Government's commitment to fund SMT.

6 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Ministry has reviewed (i) the duration which SPH Media Trust conducted the practice of over-printing, double counting of circulation numbers and then destroying these copies (ii) the impact of such practice on digital circulation (iii) the effect of this practice on its financial statements and if it was deemed material, including when it was a listed company and (iv) the undertaking of regulatory actions against current or former employees and board directors for any breaches.

7 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) when was the Government first made aware that Singapore Press Holdings Limited had inflated its circulation numbers; (b) whether the circulation numbers cited in the Ministerial Statement on 10 May 2021 were accurate; (c) when did SPH Media Trust (SMT) provide the Government with its internal report; and (d) whether the Government will present SMT’s internal report and SPH Media Holdings Board’s audit committee’s report to Parliament for scrutiny.

8 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information in light of the inconsistencies in the daily circulation numbers of SPH Media Trust (SMT)'s publications, whether the Ministry will require SMT to disclose (i) the length of time for which circulation figures are falsified and (ii) if and when action had been planned to be taken by SMT and for public disclosure to be made had the news of the falsification not been released by an alternative media outlet.

9 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what was the source of the figures cited on 10 May 2021 in Parliament that SPH's newspapers' circulation had grown by 5% and The Straits Times’ circulation had grown by 20% from 2017 to 2020; (b) how much bearing did this data have on the Government’s decision to fund SPH Media Trust (SMT); and (c) whether the Minister still considers this data reliable in light of recent admissions by SMT.

10 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the recent overstatement of SPH Media Trust (SMT)’s circulation numbers for its publications, whether the Ministry has reviewed the impact of SMT’s position with advertisers.

11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the inflation of circulation numbers has had any material impact on Singapore Press Holdings Limited’s or SPH Media Trust's financial metrics, such as gross revenue and gross profit; and (b) how will this affect the valuation of the company.

12 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the Ministry’s assessment of the impact of the falsification of past circulation figures by Singapore Press Holdings, including the timing and manner in which the news was made public, particularly on public confidence and the credibility of SPH Media Trust’s current products.

13 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how does the Government determine the quantum of taxpayer subsidies allocated to SPH Media Trust each fiscal year; and (b) whether these subsidies are contingent on (i) qualitative and (ii) quantitative metrics and outcomes, respectively.

14 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what actions will be taken against SPH Media Trust (SMT) to hold it accountable for the inconsistencies in the reported daily circulation data; and (b) whether there will be a review to the Government’s previous announcement that it will fund SMT and provide up to $900 million in funding support over the next five years.

15 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the outcome of the Ministry’s review of its funding for SPH Media Trust (SMT), in light of the findings in SMT’s internal review of circulation numbers of its publications.

16 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Government will adjust the grant given to SPH Media Trust (SMT) as the Government’s commitment to fund SMT is predicated on inflated circulation data.

17 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how will the Ministry review its formula to fund SPH Media Trust in light of the inconsistencies in circulation data; (b) to what extent will this review be shared publicly including the names of individuals who are found to have engaged in deceptive behaviours and the relevant follow-up actions taken.

18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether individuals involved in initiating and perpetuating the inflated circulation figures in SPH Media Trust have been referred to the Police for further investigation; and (b) if so, how many have been referred to the Police for further investigation.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to address Question Nos 2 to 18 in today’s Order Paper, as well as related written Question Nos 33 and 34 together?

Please proceed.

I will also address the related matters raised in the questions by Mr Darryl David,1 Mr Gerald Giam,2 Ms Hazel Poa and Dr Wan Rizal,3 which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I invite Members to seek clarifications, if need be, at this Sitting.

Members have asked about the internal review of circulation numbers by SPH Media Trust (SMT). The following is what we have been told by SMT, all of which is on public record.

After the transfer of the media business from Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPHL) to SMT in December 2021, SMT started a review to assess the data that it had taken over. This included circulation data.

SPHL’s previous annual reports set out circulation data. These were stated to be in accordance with rules established by the Audit Bureau of Media Consumption Singapore (ABC).

Over time, quantifying print circulation became less relevant and ABC ceased operations in Singapore in 2019.

As many other publishers have done, SMT decided to reassess the methodology for reporting circulation data so as to establish a new measurement framework and baseline. The circulation data they reviewed covered the period September 2020 to March 2022.

In its review, SMT found that circulation numbers in some months during the period under review were overstated by up to 90,000 average daily copies.

Sir, these events took place before SMT was formed, when the media business was under SPHL, a private listed company. However, this discrepancy has impacted SMT, including the newsrooms and journalists. SMT’s Board and management have decided to investigate the matter fully. They will have to rectify what needs to be rectified and be transparent about how they proceed.

From the Government’s perspective, we have three core interests in this matter: first, the usage of public funds; second, whether SMT’s findings on circulation affect the Government’s assessment of the need to provide funding support to SMT; and third, if we continue to assess that funding support is needed, whether the amount of funding should be revised.

Mr Speaker, I will discuss these three core interests in turn.

Parliament was informed in May 2021 that the Government supported the restructuring of SPHL’s media business into SMT. Subsequently, in February 2022, Parliament was informed of the funding that the Government was prepared to commit to support SMT’s capability development for five financial years, from FY2022.

Up to now, we have not disbursed any funds. Moreover, the Government did not have a funding relationship with SMT before FY2022. Therefore, the findings of SMT’s internal review of circulation data from September 2020 to March 2022 have no bearing on public funds.

Second, do the findings of SMT’s internal review affect the Government’s assessment of the need to provide funding support? This is what MCI’s own review sought to answer – and what Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Darryl David, Mr Don Wee, Mr Gerald Giam and others have asked about.

MCI’s review started after SMT shared its internal report with the Government on 9 January 2023. We re-examined our analysis of the media landscape in early 2021, when the decision was taken to support the restructuring of SPHL’s media business into SMT. We also reviewed our reasons for committing public funds to support SMT’s capability development.

SMT’s internal review of circulation numbers reinforced our assessment that the media landscape had become highly unfavourable for news organisations, even if they had substantial reach and were trusted by the public. In particular, demand for print and digital subscriptions had weakened because news had become freely available. This is why circulation had come under pressure.

I emphasise: this does not make it right for anyone to overstate circulation numbers. But it reaffirms the need for restructuring.

On the reasons to commit Government funds to support SMT, Members will recall that the Government had set these out on two occasions in Parliament. The first was through a Ministerial Statement in May 2021 by Minister Iswaran who was then Minister for Communications and Information. The second was in February 2022 when I responded to several Parliamentary Questions.

It is useful to remind ourselves of the key reasons laid out on both occasions.

The first reason is that our local news media is at a watershed. Structural changes, technological advances and the Internet have severely disrupted the media industry which traditionally relied on print advertising revenue.

But moving to digital poses its own set of challenges. Our local news media face intense competition for eyeballs online. Moreover, the cost of running professional newsrooms often outstrips the revenue from an online model. Although digital advertising revenue has increased, a large share of it goes to Big Tech companies like Google and Meta.

The second reason is that preserving local news media serves a larger, longer-term public interest. They give voice to the Singapore identity and Singaporean perspectives. They report world news for Singaporeans by Singaporeans. This is important given that the Internet has made it exceedingly easy for foreign news and content producers to reach and influence our domestic audiences.

In addition, there are the local vernacular news outlets, which are critical in preserving the voices of our multiracial communities. We must support them even though vernacular products are difficult to sustain financially, given their inherently smaller readership or viewership.

The third reason is that in a crowded information space where anyone and everyone can be a publisher, citizens must have sources which they can trust to be accurate and objective. We saw how important this was during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our mainstream media including SMT played crucial roles conveying accurate information in a timely fashion.

Based on an MCI survey, more than 70% of respondents accessed SMT’s digital content at least a few times a week in 2021, a jump of almost 30% since 2018. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report indicated that 77% of respondents expressed trust in The Straits Times in 2021, up from 70% in 2018.

The public has continued to choose and trust SMT’s products. We need to keep these products as viable propositions so our people can continue to benefit from the public good of quality journalism.

But staying in this game – and hopefully, getting ahead – requires deep investment in tech, infrastructure and capabilities. For example, The New York Times and German publishing giant Axel Springer have all run up hundreds of millions in investments to go digital. With the steep global decline of print media, the Government support to accelerate SMT’s transformation will give it a fighting chance in a highly competitive digital space.

Mr Speaker, these reasons for supporting SMT remain valid today. And this brings us to the third question: whether the findings of SMT’s review of the circulation numbers should affect the amount of funding committed.

Mr Speaker, in February 2022, I informed Parliament that the Government had assessed that it would provide up to $180 million of public funds annually to support SMT’s transformation for five years, starting from FY2022.

The funds would be used for technology development – for example, product development for the digital space, newsroom tools like content management resources and data analytics as well as IT infrastructure.

They would also be used for talent development – training journalists for the new operating environment, including equipping them with digital skills and multimedia capabilities.

The funds would be used also for the preservation of vernacular media – sustaining the vernacular newsrooms and developing new content formats like videos and podcasts to reach younger audiences.

I had also informed Parliament that in its initial years, we expect SMT to spend approximately 40% of the funding on tech investments and digital talent. The remainder will be spent on newsroom capability building and training, in particular, of the vernacular newsrooms.

As Members can see, in assessing the funding required for SMT’s transformation, circulation numbers were not a key consideration. The level of funding previously assessed for the purposes of investing in technology and capability development remain valid.

Let me now talk about ensuring accountability.

When Government funding is given, SMT will be held to account. Our focus is on readership and reach, which measure how many people consume the content; and not circulation, which is how many print and digital copies are sold or distributed.

Readership and reach are measured through surveys done by third parties. SPHL had previously commissioned surveys conducted by third-party research agencies such as GfK. MCI had also independently verified readership and reach using data sources outside of SPHL and SMT, including data collected by the Reuters Institute of Oxford University and our own News Consumption Surveys. We also have in place conditions and safeguards to ensure that public funding is used in an accountable and responsible manner.

I informed Parliament last year about the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) we would be applying, including (a) total reach and engagement of SMT’s products, with a focus on their digital platforms; and (b) specific reach indicators for vernacular groups and youths.

The achievement of the KPIs will determine the amount of funding SMT receives. SMT’s KPI performance and financial statements must be audited by independent external auditors before submission to the Government. The Government can also conduct its own audits of SMT.

I further shared that SMT would be required to provide progress updates to MCI on a half-yearly basis. Specifically, funding will only be disbursed if SMT provides satisfactory regular updates on where and how funding has been utilised, and future business plans. The Government will also review the funding quantum during the mid-term and adjust KPIs and funding where necessary.

Mr Speaker, I have explained the Government’s key concerns with respect to SMT’s findings from its review of circulation data. Specifically, no public monies have been lost; there is no change to the decision to provide funding support to SMT; and there is no change to the amount of funding for SMT.

Let me now turn to other questions Members have raised.

Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if the Government had independently audited the financial statements and other data provided by SPHL as part of its due diligence process before making the decision to grant it public funding. The answer is yes. Our focus was on reach and readership, as I explained earlier.

Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leong asked about the circulation figures cited by Minister Iswaran in May 2021. As the figures cited were for 2017 to 2020, a time outside the period of SMT’s review, we cannot conclude that they were inaccurate.

There were other questions about the details of SMT’s review, including (a) the duration and financial implications of the overstated circulation numbers; (b) the manner, timing and extent to which SMT discloses details of its review; and (c) police investigations.

The Members’ concerns are valid and these questions should be addressed to SMT. This includes the corporate culture Ms Hazel Poa asked about as well as SMT’s position with advertisers, as noted by Ms Mariam Jaafar.

SMT has its own corporate governance and executive team. Their CEO is accountable to their Board, which is in turn accountable to the members of the CLG. The Government cannot speak on behalf of SMT and it is premature for us to say more at this juncture. This is especially as the Board has tasked its Audit and Risk Committee to conduct further investigations into the circulation discrepancy.

The Government welcomes the Board’s resolve to examine the findings of its internal review and to put SMT on the right footing. MCI expects SMT to share the findings of its Audit and Risk Committee’s investigation with us.

SMT’s Board and management must also be mindful of their public duties, their responsibility to maintain the public’s trust in their newsrooms and journalists, and the need to discharge these responsibilities in a diligent and timely manner.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for reiterating the rationale as well as the position of the Ministry with regard to the funding on the question I asked. I understand that no funding has been released to SMT yet, but when will the first tranche for FY2022 be released in light of the current situation?

Mr Speaker, the funding agreement is close to being concluded. And once we are satisfied that the KPIs have been properly set as well as the safeguards that I had explained earlier have been properly included in the agreement, we will release the funding.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I note the Minister said in response to my question that the Government cannot confirm if the figures reported before the period of review in September 2020 are accurate, but can she confirm that the figure cited by Minister Iswaran were accurate? And secondly, was the inflation of circulation figures a long-standing practise that did not raise eyebrows until the new management came in?

Mr Speaker, we do not know. These questions that the Member posed may be better addressed after the Audit and Risk Committee completes its investigation and shares its findings with us. Until then, I would not speculate.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I had asked about the vernacular languages and I am quite concerned about the hard work that our local journalists have put in. So, I am quite comforted by the fact that we are sticking by the decision because the principle and reason have not changed despite the issues.

What I would like to ask is this: in the event that the further audit or investigation findings reveal any exposure to whether be it criminal sanctions or civil liabilities to other third parties, what are the steps that the Ministry would take to ring-fence our future funding to SMT in order to make sure or ensure that the funding will be committed to the purposes that it has been given?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. Until the Audit and Risk Committee completes its investigation and shares its findings with us, I will not pre-judge the outcome.

If there is any evidence of laws having been broken, it will be the obligation of SMT to refer the matter to the Police.

Even in those circumstances, we will have to look at what specifics have been revealed in order to assess the funding that the Government has committed to provide. There are safeguards in place and we will exercise them as necessary. But as it stands right now, our commitment to fund the capability development of SMT does not change. Our level of funding is also assessed to remain valid.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question is on my Parliamentary Question (PQ) in which I asked the effect of this practice on its financial statements and subsequently, the undertaking of regulatory actions against current and former employees, as well as the Board. The reason I ask is because circulation revenues will be impacted; that is the most direct one. And I think this is also something which happened during the time when SPH was a listed company and would be subject to the various market rules under the SGX, and this is obviously information which is relied on by advertisers as well as various capital market participants alike.

Mr Speaker, on the Member's question on financial impact, the answer is we do not know. And that is the reason why the SMT Board has decided to ask its Audit and Risk Committee to investigate the matter more fully. And until they have completed their work and shared their findings, I think everything else that we say is speculative.

Mr Don Wee.

Thank you, Speaker. In Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask the Minister even if newspaper circulation is not the primary concern here, what measures does the Ministry have to prevent such undesirable behaviours from happening again in future?

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to reply in English, for the benefit of our colleagues?

The circulation numbers may not have been our key consideration in providing funding, but the overstatement of these numbers is not right. SMT's Board as well as its management are aware of it and they are the ones that want to put things right by convening a further review by their Audit and Risk Committee. Keep in mind that these discrepancies were uncovered as a result of an internal review that was initiated by the SMT management in the first place.

So, I think it is clear that the intent of the SMT Board as well as its management to put things on the right footing; and we should support them in this process.

Ms Hazel Poa.

One of the roles of a news media is to expose wrongdoing. In this case, we have SMT discovering its own wrongdoing but not breaking the news themselves. Did the Minister seek an explanation from SMT why they did not break the news themselves but instead waited for an online news media platform to break it; and then responded?

Mr Speaker, on a day-to-day basis, many things happen in an organisation and it is up to the management to decide if and how each particular event or incident ought to be communicated, both within the organisation and outside the organisation. Keep in mind that this review was initiated by SMT and they were still in process. In fact, they have decided that they need to investigate more fully and that is why they have asked their own Audit and Risk Committee to take on this work on an extended basis. Should the manner in which they had communicated been approached differently? I think that is a matter that SMT, the management and the Board, will have to consider.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note from the Minister's reply that the investigation is still pending. However, I just wanted to ask the Minister – the matter of trust in SMT that the Minister mentioned earlier is really important, so the question is whether has any trust been broken? What is the Ministry's assessment of whether the trust has been broken, the extent to which trust has been broken and whether or not there is going to be any steps taken in the interim to restore any public trust in the organisation?

After all, people might be thinking, if the organisation goes to such lengths to falsify circulation figures such as even pulping newspapers, would we still be able to trust the content as delivered by these organisations?

Mr Speaker, I would be careful about the terms that we use to describe SMT, its management or its actions. Until the Audit and Risk Committee completes its investigation and shares it findings, I will not pre-judge the outcome. I also made clear our expectations of SMT earlier in my reply to the Parliamentary Questions (PQs). The board will have to share the Audit and Risk Committee's findings with MCI after it has completed its investigation and rectify what needs to be rectified. What needs to be rectified, that is still not known yet.

The Board is accountable to the members of the Company Limited by Guarantee, but they also have a responsibility to let the public know how they intend to proceed. I think this responsibility is not lost on them. If there was any doubt that they did not take this matter seriously, I do not see why they would have convened another review by their own Audit and Risk Committee.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister this: senior management accountability is very important. Is the Ministry pursuing the senior management of the former SPH Holdings, with regard to the falsification of circulation data? I think the Minister would agree that they actually have the responsibility because in the run-up to the taking over by the Government, the data would have some bearings on the amount of compensation that SPH Holdings should give to the Government. And although the Minister said the Government has not disbursed any money so far, but there are still implications that maybe in the past, the Government should have asked for more money from SPH.

My second question is: although the Minister said that the main due diligence done by the Ministry is on the readership and reach, but circulation data definitely is also an important area. Is there inadequate due diligence done by the Ministry and how will the Ministry pursue that further?

Mr Speaker, on Mr Leong's first set of questions, I would humbly and respectfully refer him to the Hansard for my full reply. I believe I had addressed why the Government's own review has led us to the conclusion that the reasons for funding SMT's capability development remain valid and also why the levels of funding that we have decided upon remain valid.

Just a quick recap, we are focused on technology development, talent development and the strengthening of the vernacular newsrooms. Should these be affected by the findings of the Audit and Risk Committee, at this stage, it is too early to say. I will not pre-judge.

On his second point, if the decisions that were taken earlier remain valid, why do you say that the due diligence was not done as it should?

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the due diligence, what I said is that the due diligence should also cover circulation data. If the Ministry had not discovered that in its first due diligence, then we can say there is a certain amount of inadequate due diligence being done at first. This is my first point to the second question.

On my first question, I am not talking about the justification of whether the Government should spend the $900 million or not. I am saying that the Government may have the reasons to spend $900 million dollars, which you have explained. But what I am asking is, when the Government takes over the baby from SPH, should the Government not have asked for more money if the Government had known that the circulation data was falsified?

I thank the Member for his question. Perhaps, I would ask the Member – if the circulation data was in fact lower than what has been reported, would the compensation numbers received by SMT when the transfer took over, would that not be lower than they got? That actually goes against what you are trying to ask for.

In any case, I think the nub of what Mr Leong has suggested is this: somehow, there was an inadequacy in our due diligence. I go back to this point: in hindsight, you can always find elements that could have been done differently. But let us come back to our review and the conclusion of that review. The conclusion of that review is that the reasons for funding SMT remain valid and the level of funding that we have set aside will not change. If you go by the outcomes of the review, I think the process speaks for itself whatever it is that we have put in place prior to making the decision to fund SMT and then thereafter, deciding on the amount.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, I believe my question about what is the total number of newspaper copies that were printed and counted and destroyed by SPH Media and its predecessor company; the total weight of the paper and what are the environmental impact of these actions – these were not answered just now by the Minister.

Mr Speaker, on the specifics of how many copies were involved and so on, I believe this is better addressed after the Audit and Risk Committee has completed its investigation. At this stage, we do not know. On environmental impact, MCI recognises its importance but we are not in a position to respond to it authoritatively.

Mr Leong.

Mr Speaker, I think that Minister's reply to me just now defies financial logic. When we take over the media operations from SPH and we know from the beginning that the circulation number is lower than what we have expected, we would have asked for more compensation. That is a logical way of looking at financial deals between the two entities. Would she not agree to that?

Mr Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr Leong on that. If something is worth less and I have to take over something that is worth less, surely I cannot be expected to be provided more compensation.

The one who defies financial logic is yourself, I am afraid, Mr Leong. But I leave it at this.

In any case, let us come back to the nub of the questions and the public interest in this. At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves: is the amount that we have decided to fund SMT's capability development the right amount? Regardless of what has been provided to SMT by its predecessor, SPHL, those considerations that I outlined in my reply remain valid.

19 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether artificial intelligence (AI) technologies such as ChatGPT are expected to affect student coursework and open-book assessments and, if so, how; (b) what challenges and opportunities exist in the educational and skills landscape due to the rise of such AI; and (c) what is being done to inculcate life skills, soft skills, and other competencies so that human workers can remain competitive and relevant amidst a landscape encompassing international competition and AI advancements.

20 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are cases of cheating among students in schools and Institutes of Higher Learning in relation to the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT; and (b) what measures are put in place to detect plagiarism.

21 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry is studying the trend of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology among international student bodies to cheat in exams and assignments; (b) whether similar instances have happened locally; (c) how does the Ministry plan to address this issue in Singapore’s education system; and (d) how will the Ministry guide educators to harness the use of AI to enhance learning while ensuring that students do not misuse AI technology for cheating or any other unethical behaviour.

22 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Education what are schools doing to prevent potential abuses of artificial intelligence chatbots such as ChatGPT.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the Question Nos 19 to 22 together, please.

Please do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have asked how the Ministry of Education (MOE) plans to address the use of ChatGPT and similar Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), and in particular, how MOE will prevent students from misusing ChatGPT.

Mr Speaker, let me first say this: as with any technology, ChatGPT and similar generative AI tools present both opportunities and challenges to users. Both challenges and opportunities.

These technologies are in our midst and will become more pervasive over time. Therefore, MOE provides educators in schools and IHLs with guidance and resources to effectively harness it to enhance learning. There are also professional discussion groups amongst our educators to explore its use in the education setting.

At the same time, our educators will still teach students to understand fundamental concepts and guide students against developing an over-reliance on technological tools.

For example, just like how a calculator supports students' capacity for learning mathematics but that does not replace the need for our students to first master basic mathematical operations. ChatGPT can be a useful tool for learning only when students have mastered basic concepts and thinking skills. In a more uncertain world, we must also teach our students to embrace and learn to work with tools in the new normal that have a range of outcomes beyond a deterministic outcome like a calculator. This would extend to AI tools that will increase in pervasiveness and may not provide only deterministic answers.

Our educators will also help students understand how AI tools like ChatGPT work. As ChatGPT can provide inaccurate or biased output depending on its inputs, students need to be discerning and critically assess its output for accuracy and objectivity.

Schools and IHLs adopt a range of practices to guard against misuse of this technology. In their daily work, students are taught the importance of integrity and the harmful impact and consequences of plagiarism. In addition, teachers use multiple modes of assessment to gauge students' proficiency and detect uncharacteristic responses that could be AI-generated content.

Our IHLs have varied modes of assessment including examinations, presentations and projects that require analysis, field notes and observational details that cannot be generated easily by AI technology. A wide variety of strategies are adopted to detect plagiarism in assignments, including technological tools to detect content generated by AI technology. These approaches will necessarily evolve over time.

Our schools equip students with important skills such as assimilating concepts and applying them to new and dynamic situations, self-directed and collaborative learning, inventive thinking, relationship management and cross-cultural skills. These skills are not easily replaced by technological tools and acquired through leadership roles, interdisciplinary project work and various forms of experiential learning.

And I must emphasise this, in this new world, the critical skill for our students to acquire are: how to discover, distil and to discern and if possible, create or develop something new in the process. All these efforts are sustained as students enter our IHLs, where the curriculum has also been enhanced to help students develop baseline digital competencies, as well as life skills to better navigate work and adulthood. Our schools and IHLs will continue to equip students with digital competencies and values to enable them to harness technology confidently and responsibly.

And finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the record, this answer has been provided by my hardworking MOE officers and not by ChatGPT. [Laughter.]

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I would like to thank the Minister for sharing the positives and negatives of ChatGPT. To be honest, when I started writing the Parliamentary Question (PQ), I was concerned with ChatGPT being used pervasively by students and giving them an advantage. But over time, after using it myself extensively and testing it against my essay questions and seeing how it can be caught for plagiarism, I understand that it is quite important that we teach our students the importance of using AI-related tools. I think that this is the wave that we should embark on.

I would like to ask the Minister: would the Ministry consider having courses that would encourage people to make use of AI-related tools for their work in the future?

Mr Speaker, Sir. The answer is yes. Indeed, we have a plan and we are already conducting courses for our educators to help them understand both the potential and the challenges of such AI technologies. We have discussion groups within the professional community on how to harness the potential of such technologies for us to improve the education system.

Similarly, we would also like to equip our students with the skillsets to learn how to use this responsibly. Because as I have mentioned, in the new world, it is not just about trying to find a deterministic answer like learning how to use a calculator, where one plus one always equals to two. In the new world, we need to be able to work with a range of possible outcomes and consider them holistically. That is why, I have been emphasising to all my students and teachers that the new skillsets for us in this generation is learning how to discover, to distil and finally, to discern. And if possible, to develop or create something new in the process because our value-add today is not about trying to answer yesterday's problems with yesterday's answer. Our value-add is how to create tomorrow's solutions for tomorrow's challenges ahead of time. These are new skillsets that we must all acquire and help our students to acquire.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister one supplementary question regarding whether the policy governing the use of AI, especially in relation to cheating, is very clearly spelled out now for all the schools? And do the students know this as well? In what way has the communication been done? And finally, have any cases been detected so far and what are the penalties?

Mr Speaker, Sir. The answer to Dr Lim's question is this: cheating is cheating. Cheating is not tolerated in any of our education institutions. Cheating may take the form of conventional cheating or cheating may take new forms, like that enabled by new technologies.

So, this is always an evergreen challenge that we have to overcome. But it requires two parts in the solutioning. The first part is how to detect cheating is our examinations, tests and so forth. And that is, again, a bit like a "cat and mouse" game where if you improve your technologies, the other side may also try to come up with other new and innovation ways. But that is the technical aspect. I think the more important aspect is how we educate our people to understand the fundamental values, hold on to the fundamental values, how we impart them the values such that they understand why they are doing what they are doing.

In the learning process, it is not about coming out with an answer to give the answer and submit it to the teachers or to the examination board. What is more important is also the process of trying to get to the answer and how you derive that answer. And if some tools can help you to derive a better answer, so be it. But we expect all our students to declare, truthfully, where their sources of information may come from. And even then, they must be able to go back to the three "D"s that I mentioned: discover, distil and discern. And that, must not change.

23 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister with regard to the stern warnings issued to six former staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (a) whether the reasons for issuing stern warnings in lieu of prosecution for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 can be elaborated upon; and (b) what is the assessed reputation damage to Singapore arising from the case.

24 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister regarding CPIB's decision not to prosecute six former employees of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) due to evidentiary difficulties (a) whether the statement of facts which KOM agreed to as part of a plea agreement with the United States Department of Justice and the admissions made in the United States proceedings by KOM's former legal counsel who is based in Singapore were considered; and (b) if so, why were these considered as insufficient in overcoming the said difficulties.

25 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister what specific difficulties were faced by the Attorney-General's Chambers and Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in considering whether to prefer charges against the officers of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) over corrupt payments from KOM to Petrobas and Sete Brasil in Brazil from 2001 to 2014, despite KOM's admissions under both the Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the US Department of Justice and the Brazilian leniency agreement.

26 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister why the statement of facts contained in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement concluded between Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited with the United States Department of Justice dated 22 December 2017 is not considered sufficient, available, and appropriate evidence of the six former senior management staff's culpability for them to be charged with corruption in Singapore.

27 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister what information or evidence can be given to reassure the public that the decision not to prosecute the six former staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited involved in the S$73 million bribe payments case has nothing to do with their connections and that this is not an example of cronyism.

28 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister whether other agencies apart from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and Attorney-General's Chambers, have been consulted on the issue of the appropriate action to be taken on former staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited who are involved in bribe payments and, if so, what are those views.

29 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister based on investigations into the Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited corruption case conducted by CPIB (a) what are the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 (PCA) that were considered for prosecution for the six individuals; and (b) what is the maximum penalty for these offences under the PCA.

30 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister in deciding against prosecuting the six individuals involved in the Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited corruption case (a) what weightage has been given to the various relevant factors such as the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances; and (b) whether this is consistent with the Government’s political commitment and leadership and a culture of zero tolerance against corruption.

31 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister regarding CPIB's investigation of six former employees of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) for the bribery of Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobas) officials (a) whether KOM’s parent company then, any officer of the parent company at the material time or any other entity or person was investigated for facilitating the bribery of Petrobas officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960; (b) if so, what are the findings from the investigations; and (c) what is the conclusion from these investigations.

32 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Prime Minister whether the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's investigations into the bribery scheme by Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM) to obtain contracts from Petrobas and Sete Brasil in Brazil from 2001 to 2014 show that, apart from the six persons issued warnings by the Bureau, there were officials higher up the hierarchy of KOM who were aware of, or were wilfully ignorant of, the bribery scheme before or during its lifespan.

33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister since 2000, how many (i) warnings (ii) stern warnings and (iii) prosecutions have been initiated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

34 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister regarding the recent case where the CPIB issued stern warnings to six former employees of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited for bribery offences (a) what is the Government’s response to concerns that the penalty is too light, as some offenders have been jailed for much smaller sums of money; and (b) in view of the multinational nature of the alleged transactions, what measures can be taken to improve the deterrence and prosecution of such cross-boundary corruption.

35 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister how will the decision not to prosecute the six individuals who were involved in the Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited corruption case in Brazil likely to affect the reputation of Singapore and Singaporean companies for having a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption.

36 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the decision not to prosecute the six individuals who are involved in the Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited corruption case in Brazil represents a departure from the Government's stated stance of zero tolerance towards corruption; and (b) whether the said decision will have an impact on deterring Singaporeans at home or abroad from committing corrupt acts in a manner that makes prosecution similarly difficult.

37 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Prime Minister (a) whether zero tolerance on corruption remains to be the Government’s position; and (b) if so, whether the decision to issue stern warnings to the six individuals who were formerly senior management staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited involved in the bribery case undermines that position and signals a lack of political will to stamp out corruption.

38 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister what is CPIB’s policy in determining the circumstances in which it will investigate foreign bribery cases involving Singapore citizens as provided for in section 37 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960.

39 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Prime Minister in light of the conditional warning in lieu of prosecution against six former senior management staff of Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited over bribe payments, whether the Government will consider amending the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 to expand the powers of the CPIB to facilitate investigations outside of jurisdiction and the available penalties to include compounding offences with profit disgorgement or restitution for appropriate cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 23 to 39 in the Order Paper together?

Yes, please.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My response to these Parliamentary Questions would also effectively address the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) by Members Ms Hazel Poa and Ms He Ting Ru for written answer today; and the PQs by Members Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam, Dr Wan Rizal1 and Ms Poa2 scheduled for subsequent Sittings. The Members may wish to raise any supplementary questions arising therefrom and withdraw the PQs for later Sittings which are answered today.

Mr Speaker, the questions arise from the Public Prosecutor's (PP's), decision to issue stern warnings to six former senior management staff from Keppel Offshore & Marine Limited (KOM), some of whom used to work at KOM's wholly-owned US subsidiary at relevant times.

The questions raised by Members fall into the following broad categories:

why were the six individuals issued with stern warnings instead of being prosecuted;

whether, and if so why, the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) and the accompanying Statement of Facts (SOF) are insufficient to mount a prosecution;

details of the investigations or decision to issue stern warnings;

why the six individuals in question were not named and whether they should be;

statistics on stern warnings and prosecutions;

whether the decision to issue stern warnings, instead of prosecuting, will affect our zero tolerance stance on corruption and reputation;

corruption in foreign jurisdictions; and

sufficiency of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Before I answer these questions, let me deal with a preliminary point. There has been a fair bit of speculation on why the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) did not issue a fuller statement or why the Government is dealing with the matter in Parliament, which is based on a lack of understanding of how these matters are usually dealt with.

First, CPIB had explained the reasons for its decision in its press release. With your leave, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute copies of the press release to Members?

Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Members may also access the handout through the SGParl MP mobile app. You would see, at paragraph 5, that CPIB explained: "This case is complex and transnational, involving multiple authorities and witnesses from several countries. There are evidentiary difficulties in cases of such nature. Many of the documents are located in different jurisdictions. In addition, key witnesses are located outside of Singapore and cannot be compelled to give evidence here. The decision whether to prosecute the six individuals for criminal offences has to take into consideration all relevant factors, such as the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances. Having taken these into consideration, stern warnings were issued to the six individuals."

Police and other law enforcement agencies investigate a vast number of cases. When they do not proceed, the standard practice is not to issue any statement.

Where there is public interest in knowing more details, Members may file questions in this House. And the relevant Minister will, after consulting the PP who made the decision independently, answer the questions to the extent permitted in law. That is what is happening here, in this case.

I think Members will agree, in general, when the law enforcement agencies do not proceed to charge someone after completing investigations, it is not expected that the agencies go into details of the decision. But if anyone has questions on the decision, the matter can be raised in Parliament and that is what we are doing now.

Let me deal with questions that I have identified.

First, the reasons for issuing the stern warning rather than prosecution and the sufficiency of DPA and SOF. Decisions on charging are made by the PP. In deciding whether to charge, the PP has to consider whether he has the necessary evidence to prove that those individuals were involved in certain conduct and possessed a certain mental state, to establish the offences. In this case, as CPIB explained in its media release, there are evidentiary difficulties in doing so.

Simply put – there is a lack of sufficient evidence either documentary or through witnesses, which would establish any criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt against a specific individual.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has made a number of mutual legal assistance requests over five years. To date, the findings from these requests are insufficient for prosecution, as I will elaborate later.

Given this reality, I would like to know if any Member thinks that, nevertheless, even without sufficient evidence, the PP should have proceeded to bring charges against individuals who deny the allegations against them. If so, please let me know and the basis on which you say so.

Does the fact that KOM had entered into DPA make a difference in this matter? And would the DPA be enough to, at least, commence prosecution against the specific individuals in question? The answer is no.

The DPA and related documents were entered into between KOM, the US Department of Justice and the US Attorney's Office. KOM USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of KOM, also entered into a plea bargain agreement with the US authorities. No individuals were parties to these documents. While the documents make reference to the actions of certain individuals, I have been advised that those references, on their own, are insufficient to establish any offences beyond reasonable doubt, without witnesses testifying in Singapore about the context surrounding those actions and the intention behind them.

In short, the agencies do not have sufficient evidence that would show, beyond reasonable doubt that any of the six individuals were guilty of an offence.

CPIB conducted an in-depth investigation within Singapore, within the scope of its legal powers. However, as I said earlier, the difficulty with this case is that several potentially key witnesses are not in Singapore and CPIB has not been able to secure their cooperation or agreement to testify in Singapore.

With the initial assistance of the Brazilian authorities, CPIB made two fact-finding trips to Brazil in May and August 2019.

AGC and CPIB sent three mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests to Brazil to secure the evidence that was needed. AGC and CPIB also sent an MLA request to another relevant foreign authority to interview other potential material witnesses. The contents and outcome of these MLA requests are confidential, but I can inform the House that they have either not yielded evidence that could be used to secure a conviction before our Courts, or the responses have not been helpful in advancing the case.

There is one foreign witness who gave evidence in other proceedings, which could have been relevant in establishing the offences in Singapore. However, that foreign witness is not willing to voluntarily give evidence in Singapore. Neither AGC nor CPIB can compel him to do so.

Some Members may ask whether any prosecution could be advanced arising out of the fact that a particular individual had entered into a plea bargain in another jurisdiction, in relation to his involvement in the KOM bribery. When this individual was investigated by CPIB on his return to Singapore, he denied knowing that commissions paid to the agent in Brazil were paid out as bribes. He did not, during CPIB's investigations, implicate himself or any others in conspiring to pay bribes. Even if the PP applies to a Singapore Court to admit the plea agreement, the agreement did not identify any specific individuals and was made in the context of a plea bargain and will be given limited weight without further supporting evidence and in the face of potentially conflicting oral testimony.

CPIB has conducted as thorough an investigation as it could with the information and powers that it possessed. However, given the cross-border nature of this case and absence of key witnesses, CPIB's investigations could not overcome the evidential difficulties for the purposes of prosecution in a Singapore Court. As such, stern warnings were issued. If, subsequently, new and compelling facts come to light, it remains open for the PP to re-evaluate the decision in the light of the evolving legal and factual matrix.

Ms Hazel Poa asked whether the decision to issue a stern warning was unanimous in AGC and CPIB, and if other agencies were consulted. Mr Louis Chua asked what offences were being considered.

The decision not to charge is made by the PP in the exercise of his discretion and professional judgement, taking into account all relevant considerations. The PP does not tell us whether everyone in AGC agreed with him or if there were differing views, or which agencies he worked with apart from CPIB. Nor is it our task to ask AGC to list all the agencies which were involved. In the end, what matters is the considered view of AGC, working with CPIB.

In response to Mr Chua, I am advised that relevant potential offences were considered by the PP.

Next, on the naming of individuals, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam asked about the identities or details of the six individuals. Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether other entities or persons were involved.

As a matter of policy, CPIB does not disclose the names of individuals unless they are charged in court. This policy is not unique to the CPIB; law enforcement agencies in the US, UK and New Zealand have a similar approach. The principle underlying this policy is to avoid prejudicing that individual's right to due process and also avoid any presumption of guilt in the absence of any formal findings.

If Members feel that hereafter, this practice should be changed and that law enforcement agencies should name all individuals who were investigated, even if in the end no charges are brought, then please say so. That would be a major change of policy. But please note, if Members want to change, then it cannot be only for this case. It must be for all future cases. That is something to think carefully about. Members will recall that about two years ago, a question was in fact raised in this House, asking about the protections available for those whose reputations are affected by media coverage of ongoing trials of certain offences and how such reports are regulated.

Dr Tan Wu Meng sought statistics on prosecutions and stern warnings, and Ms Poa asked if warnings were issued in other corruption cases. From 2017 to 2021, CPIB has issued an average of 138 warnings annually and 139 individuals were prosecuted. Stern warnings are not unusual, being used in cases where there are evidential difficulties or little public interest to prosecute.

Questions have been asked on the impact of Singapore's zero tolerance policy on corruption and reputation. There is no change in Singapore's zero tolerance policy on corruption. I have explained the reasons why no criminal proceedings have been brought in this matter. In having regard to the rules of evidence, CPIB and AGC are observing the basic rules for a fair and just criminal justice system. What can be inferred from this is that while Singapore has zero tolerance on corruption, it also strongly adheres to the rule of law.

Mr Murali Pillai asked in what circumstances CPIB will investigate foreign bribery cases involving Singapore Citizens or companies under section 37 of the PCA. CPIB will investigate all cases whether they happened locally or overseas, as long as the alleged offences fall under the ambit of the PCA and the information is credible and can be pursued. CPIB will investigate and submit its findings and recommendations to the PP, who will then decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

On Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hazel Poa's questions regarding Singapore companies being convicted of corruption abroad, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) does not have such records and CPIB's records do not go as far back as 1965. More recently, in 2015, a Singapore company, Glenn Defense Marine Asia Pte Ltd (GDMA), pleaded guilty in the USA to bribery-related offences. GDMA was not prosecuted in Singapore as key evidence against the company was not available here and GDMA had been dealt with in the USA. However, Gursharan Kaur Sharon Rachael, the Singaporean employee of the US Navy, was prosecuted here as evidence of her corrupt conduct was available to CPIB and she pleaded guilty to those offences.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked if we will amend the PCA to expand the powers of the CPIB to facilitate investigations outside jurisdiction. CPIB's powers under the PCA allow it to investigate offences committed by Singaporeans abroad but the investigations have to be conducted in Singapore. CPIB cannot conduct investigations abroad. And regardless of what our law says, it is not possible for our agencies to exercise police powers in another country. That would not be allowed or tolerated by any other country, just like we would never allow a foreign investigative agency to exercise police powers in Singapore.

Think of it this way – do you think Singaporeans will or should accept that a regional police force can come into Singapore and interrogate Singaporeans?

Hence, when evidence resides outside Singapore, our agencies are dependent on international cooperation and foreign authorities to facilitate their investigations and secure the relevant evidence. This Parliament cannot legislate to empower CPIB to conduct investigations in foreign jurisdictions because that would run afoul of territorial sovereignty.

Therefore, Members need to be realistic about what we can and cannot do. Singapore companies who operate overseas do so in myriad environments, where all kinds of business practices prevail. We cannot police all of them. However, what we can and should do is to insulate our companies and our system against corruption. Our companies must find a way to do business cleanly, wherever they do business and people must know that is how we operate.

In conclusion, the PP decided not to prosecute the six individuals because the evidence available in Singapore does not provide sufficient evidential basis to prosecute, bearing in mind the Prosecution's burden is to establish the ingredients of each offence beyond reasonable doubt. The CPIB has done its best, including working with international partners to uncover such evidence.

CPIB and AGC have undertaken a careful and thorough review of the documents, including the DPAs and plea bargains and the PP has advised that those are insufficient to meet the burden of proof. But if subsequently new and compelling evidence comes up, the PP can and will re-evaluate the decision. The PP's decision to issue stern warnings should be understood in that context.