Hansard, Monday, 9 May 2022

1 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the current proportion of servicewomen in the SAF; (b) what is the current proportion of SAF servicewomen in senior leadership; (c) what measures will be taken to increase the proportion of SAF servicewomen and SAF servicewomen in senior leadership and to expand the roles that can be held by SAF servicewomen.

2 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Defence with regard to the enlistment of women for National Service (NS) (a) whether there are any other considerations apart from having adequate NS population to meet our national security and defence needs; and (b) if so, what are these other considerations.

Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, as they are related?

Please do.

Thank you. In general, the questions raised by Ms Poh Li San and Ms Carrie Tan deal with the role of women in the national defence of Singapore. Similar issues were raised during the debate in this House on the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development and my reply today will address the general theme, as well as specific queries.

The proposal to enlist women into National Service (NS) is not new. In fact, it was debated as early as 1967, when NS was first introduced into this House. It was during the debate on the National Service (Amendment) Bill. To the then-Member of Parliament for Tiong Bahru, Mr Lee Teck Him, Dr Goh Keng Swee replied that we had not reached the stage where mandating NS for women was necessary.

The Government's position on the conscription of women into military service remains today. But it is important to state clearly why we hold to this position, so that this House and Singaporeans understand how we have sustained the strong support for NS and built up a credible SAF. The principal considerations which go to the heart of Ms Carrie Tan's questions, that men, but not women, were mandatorily enlisted when NS began, had less to do with gender equality than the pressing need to quickly build up a military to defend Singapore. The British had announced in 1967 that they would pull out all forces from Singapore by April 1971 and that precipitated a live challenge.

An SAF had to be built from scratch and expeditiously, because there were clear and present dangers that threatened our very existence as a fledgling nation. Dr Goh Keng Swee and his officials and the SAF pioneers' first preference was, actually, not NS conscription, but an army formed by regulars, men and women. They did not want to deal with the potential problems of NS – turning civilians into soldiers, equity, defaulters, deserters, training injuries and even deaths, among them. But, a regular army would not have been sufficient to protect Singapore. So, NS was started and this House subsequently passed the Enlistment Act in 1970.

The Enlistment Act to effect NS, as it was originally drafted and stands, allows for both males and females to be enlisted, the precise clause – a "person subject to this Act means a person who is a citizen of Singapore or a permanent resident thereof…" It does not exclude women.

In fact, Mr Lee Kuan Yew wrote in his memoirs "From Third World to First: The Singapore Story", and I quote, "I was keen to have our women do National Service as Israeli women did, because that would reinforce the people's will to defend themselves. But Keng Swee did not want his new Ministry to carry this extra burden. As the other Ministers in Defco" – meaning Defence Council – "were also not anxious to draft our women, I did not press my point."

"An extra burden" – our founding leaders and Dr Goh Keng Swee were honest and professional in their assessment. Building up SAF with male conscripts alone was difficult. I quote for you Dr Goh's words: "At that time, we were just beginning; SAFTI was just ongoing, probably producing its first or second output of non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and officer cadets. We had an acute shortage of training officers and commanders from NCOs upwards, and the thought of raising a huge NSF army just made us shrink from the responsibility."

We are used to the image of Singapore's Founding Fathers. In fact, behind the brave exterior of SAF pioneers, laid doubts and insecurities. Enlisting women would have been an "extra burden" that they did not want to take on.

Today, NS is well-accepted and SAF functions well. So, it is hard to imagine that Dr Goh Keng Swee and the SAF pioneers could have felt overwhelmed – so much so that, today, I think we take NS for granted. But, despite the enormous challenge that our founders had, they persisted, overcame and we enjoy the fruits of their labours.

In 1975, full-time NS could be extended to bring in NSFs for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) as well as for the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) in 1981.

NS has succeeded well enough in building a credible SAF with male conscripts, such that in 1983, when the topic of NS for women resurfaced, SAF's professional assessment then was "that the SAF could cope with the manpower shortage through various efficiency and technological means." Indeed, this is the case today.

Despite falling birth rates, SAF has maintained operational readiness with reduced manpower through the same use of technology and optimising resources. I have given many examples in this House of how this transformation has produced today's modern SAF that is more mechanised, motorised, lethal and effective, despite smaller numbers of soldiers.

Having reached this position of strength, should we, for the sake of gender equality, introduce NS for women? I think that is the question that some people have put forth. Some proposed this idea during the debate on the White Paper, including to deploy these NS conscripts as nurses or teachers. I think there are distinct pitfalls, if conscription is implemented for any other reason than the critical need of military defence, whether it is for men or women.

Compared to 1967, when we introduced NS, Singapore remains one of the few countries that NS is accepted, working well and enjoys strong public support. And the main reason that we have this virtuous state of affairs is that we have kept the mission of NS clearly focused on the critical need for national defence. The primary reason for enlistment into SAF must remain to train a soldier who is able to defend Singapore and to repel, if not defeat, an enemy who wants to invade our country. Likewise, enlistment into the Police and SCDF must be based on the national need for homeland security and emergency services.

This stark raison d'être of NS to fight and defend our country and ensure its security is the foremost consideration that must undergird the mandatory enlistment of all National Servicemen. It is very far off from the proposals to conscript women to serve in roles such as caregivers and healthcare workers, or to send a powerful signal of gender equality. These are inadequate justifications or reasons to mandate that someone must suspend individual liberties as a civilian, give up two years of his or her life; and, if they do not, they go to jail, as our Courts have sentenced NS defaulters.

Further, the societal cost of enlisting women into NS now would far outweigh the benefits. Women would be delayed in their entry into the workforce. The immediate effect will be an accentuated decline in the size of our local workforce and the reduction of household incomes. Even if women are enlisted for non-military NS roles to augment our healthcare and social services, it may make manpower shortages in other industries worse.

Over the long term, it will impose a great cost not only on women themselves, but also on their families, children and spouses, and society as a whole. Is that cost justified to send a signal or to reverse stereotypes? From the Government's perspective, no. I think most Singaporeans would say no, too, from a security perspective.

But, if Singapore was ever threatened with an existential threat by an aggressor and have a sudden and great need to boost our military, I am certain that MINDEF and SAF would call on the Government of that day to enlist not only women, but even teenagers and older men into military service to defend and save Singapore.

The Ukrainians did exactly this when their homeland was invaded. They required women employed in a wide range of professions, aged between 18 and 60, to register for possible military conscription. Young men and the elderly, who were well past their retirement age, also volunteered to fight on the frontlines to protect their country. In fact, I had a few emails from retired Singaporean males who offered to come back into the SAF, I am not sure why, when Ukraine was invaded. I sent them a polite reply and said, "we do not need you, yet."

There was even a report published in Reuters in February 2022 of a 79-year-old Ukrainian woman, who was filmed at a training ground handling a Kalashnikov assault rifle.

But we are not there today and hope never to be.

In considering NS for women, we should not inadvertently downplay or dismiss the already significant contributions that women do make in national defence and security by serving as Regulars and volunteers.

Ms Poh Li San asked about the measures undertaken to expand the roles that Regular servicewomen can serve in SAF. Our Regular servicewomen currently serve in vocations, such as Infantry, Artillery, Armour, Combat Engineers, Pilots and Naval Officers, amongst others. Today, we have more than 1,600 uniformed servicewomen in SAF who make up about 8% of our Regulars. In addition, more than 500 women have been trained and deployed as SAF volunteers (SVs) in a variety of roles since 2015.

Indeed, servicewomen within SAF hold their own and many punch above their weight. Progression to senior ranks for all personnel is based on merit, capability and aptitude, as it is for all soldiers. Currently, women make up 5% of Regulars holding senior ranks of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Military Expert (ME) ME6, or Master Warrant Officer (MWO) and above. We hope to see this figure increase as the proportion of servicewomen in SAF continues to grow.

We need to look no further than Members in this House as good examples – Ms Gan Siow Huang and Ms Poh Li San. As our first female Brigadier-General in SAF, Ms Gan took command of the Air Power Generation Command, which is the largest formation in the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). Ms Poh also started her career in RSAF as a helicopter Search and Rescue pilot and was the Flight Commander of 125 Squadron. She was also the first female full-time Aide-de-Camp to the late President, Mr SR Nathan.

Outside SAF, women serve as Regulars in SPF and SCDF, and contribute to our national defence and security. For example, other than serving in SPF as a Police Inspector in the 1990s, Ms Sylvia Lim was appointed as a member of the Advisory Council on Community Relations in Defence, ACCORD, from 2012 to 2020, where she maintained support for our national defence among the community and business groups.

Ms Poh Li San also asked about SAF's efforts to continue expanding the proportion of servicewomen in SAF and those who hold senior leadership positions. We have stepped up our recruitment of women because SAF wants more women to join our ranks and will make it more attractive for them to do so. For example, we facilitate flexible work arrangements, such as part-time or job-sharing and telecommuting, where possible, without compromising operational readiness. We have also implemented policies to help our servicemen and women take better care of their loved ones with childcare and parent care leave, and counselling services to support their well-being. Aside from career progression and opportunities in the workplace, SAF has also taken proactive steps to improve servicewomen recruitment and retention. It set up the SAF Women Outreach Office (WOO) in July 2020. This provides dedicated focus to review policies and create a conducive and progressive workplace experience for our servicewomen.

Sir, let me summarise and conclude.

Compulsory NS comes with significant costs on enlistees and the society and can only be justified if it serves the critical need of national security and defence. This is the basis of the social compact and individual responsibility for NS, and those who do not comply are dealt with harshly. Historically, SAF started the conscription of males and is able to defend Singapore today against potential aggressors and provide adequate deterrence. Likewise, the enlistment of males into SPF and SCDF is sufficient for our homeland security needs. There is, currently, no need for us to enlist women for NS.

We should not enlist women for NS to perform roles outside SAF, SPF or SCDF, even if that achieves some social good. The cost on women themselves, their families and society does not justify enlisting women into NS for those reasons. Women are already contributing to nation-building as Regulars and volunteers. SAF and Home Team welcome more women to pursue full-time careers or join their volunteer units.

Ms Poh Li San.

I would like to thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, given the declining birth rates and also a shrinking male population over the next 10 to 20 years, other than transformation using technology, does MINDEF have plans to further increase the recruitment of full-time servicewomen to augment the numbers to meet operational needs?

My second question is on flexible work arrangements (FWAs) for our servicewomen. Beyond no-pay leave and current FWAs, what else can MINDEF offer our servicewomen, so that they can spend a few years to start their young families and still come back to the force to contribute?

Mr Speaker, the short answer to the first question by Ms Poh Li San is: yes, we are stepping up recruitment not only for women, but Singaporeans across the board. Thankfully, and I suppose, expectedly, we are counter cyclical when it comes to the economy. Our recruitment has been fairly successful and our attrition quite low. But, despite that, we recognise that there are falling numbers. As I had said, even with the decline in manpower and our birth rates, we have been able to keep SAF's effectiveness and operational readiness.

In terms of how we are adapting SAF and MINDEF to be a choice workplace for Singaporeans, it is an HR challenge – let me frame it that way. In other words, despite being a military, how do you attract and recruit Singaporeans – males, females – who want to join you? We are taking this challenge seriously. We recognise that COVID-19 has precipitated a number of changes, which will not go back to status quo ante.

We have peculiar security needs, so, working from home is harder. In lieu of that, let me give an example. Instead of working from home – you cannot work from home because our IT systems are often, for classification purposes, separated from the grid – we have set up work near homes. So, now, servicewomen and servicemen can go near their homes to a secure system and do their work. We have set it up now over in northeast, southwest and central Singapore.

And just like the whole-of-Government and Civil Service, we are seeing how work away from office – rather than near home or at home – is very much, we believe, an entrenched concept. If you try to fight it, you will not become an attractive recruiter as an organisation. We are going to embrace it, but see how it works.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Speaker, I generally agree with what the Minister for Defence has explained on the women's role in the defence of Singapore. However, I think it is also an appropriate instance now to raise the issue: is the sharing of the burden of the defence of our country now being reviewed, in view of the fact that we have a rising population, but we continue to have a declining number of male enlistees? So, is there a review being done as to how we can ensure that the sharing of the burden of the defence of this country is being done properly?

Mr Speaker, can I ask the Member to clarify what he means "sharing of burden"? Who and which group is he referring to?

What I am referring to is, the burden of defending this country must be shared, in my opinion, by all the citizens of this country. That is why we are here today, talking about what are the roles women can play, whether they can play a bigger role in the defence of this country. So, at the same time, we also know that our population is increasing, but there are still not enough male enlistees in our SAF. So, why is that situation allowed to be continued?

Mr Speaker, I have gone to great lengths in describing that SAF, even from its inception, had made use of technology and optimising resources, so that we can build a credible and strong SAF, even despite declining enlistees. So, the assertion by Mr Leong Mun Wai goes completely against what I have said in the last 15 minutes. He either does not believe me or thinks that SAF is not credible, and, therefore, the rest of his questions are not germane.

3 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Law (a) whether there were similar instances of cheating by trainee lawyers in the years prior to the recent discovery of candidates cheating in the 2020 Part B Bar examination and (b) if so, what actions were taken against them.

4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Law (a) whether any steps need to be taken to address public concerns about the law students found cheating; and (b) whether the punishments meted out are sufficient.

5 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) has observed a similar trend of trainee lawyers cheating in their Bar examinations, especially for the 2021 cohort; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to introduce any rules to regulate trainee lawyers' conduct so as to ensure that they are deemed ethically ready to be called to the Bar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer all the Parliamentary Questions related to the recent incidents of cheating by trainee lawyers during the 2020 Bar examinations together? That would include Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 in the Order Paper from Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hany Soh, as well as Question No 11 for Written Answer from Mr Ang Wei Neng filed for today's Sitting.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) conducts the Bar examinations in Singapore. SILE has said that it has put in place additional safeguards to prevent cheating. It has introduced remote proctoring for examinations that are conducted online and SILE's position is that, apart from the 11 cases which have been uncovered, they have not found any other cases of cheating in the subsequent rounds of the Bar examinations. But, of course, the fact is that there is a difference between whether it has happened and what they have found. But they have not found anything else.

As regards these particular trainee lawyers, SILE has required that all of them who cheated are to repeat the preparatory course and/or the Bar examinations in the next year. The Attorney-General has objected to their applications for admission because of the cheating during the Bar examinations and the Court has adjourned their hearings for admission. So, what does that mean? It means that their applications to be admitted to the Bar will be heard at some time in the future, when the adjournments end. To get admitted, they will need to convince all the stakeholders involved that they are fit and proper to practise law before they are allowed to do so.

As with all admission applications, the High Court has the discretion to rule on whether a particular applicant should be admitted or should not be admitted, taking into account the views of the Attorney-General, SILE and the Law Society.

We need to be careful about how much we discuss here and I have to be careful of what I say because the applications of the trainee lawyers who cheated are still pending in Court. In the circumstances, what I can say is this: lawyers are fiduciaries. They are expected to act in the best interests of the clients they advise. They are also officers of the Court, meaning they owe a very high duty to the Court. They have to be honest, both with their clients and with the Court. They have to act with the highest standards of probity to ensure that they can be relied upon with utmost confidence. That is not just as lawyers advising clients, but in every other aspect of their conduct.

Cheating is a serious derogation from the basic principle of honesty. I think all this can be said without too much contention. There are levels of seriousness when lawyers behave dishonestly: misleading clients is serious, lying in Court is serious, lying on oath is serious. Some of these carry potential criminal consequences. There is also other conduct which, if it is unbefitting of a lawyer, whether or not in the context of advising a client, can also be taken up.

These are basic principles. I am sure Members, including the Members who have asked the questions, would accept that any such conduct is quite unacceptable.

What happens to the particular trainee lawyers' applications, how they will be dealt with – the Courts will decide, taking into account the views of the respective institutions, which will put forward their views.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.

If you can keep it to two questions, please. Thank you.

Okay. First one: the Minister mentioned that SILE has since put in additional safeguards. Of course, we could say we are smarter in hindsight, but my question is, why were some of these safeguards not put in place in the first instance? If some of the trainees in previous examinations – which is the question I filed – have subsequently been practising, may I ask the Minister whether the LawSoc has found any misconduct amongst any of them in that group? These are the earlier cases. Were there any similar cases of examinees that cheated in the past?

My second supplementary question is: earlier on, we were concerned about second chances. Given that the names of these candidates are now revealed, what can we say about giving them second chances?

Mr Seah Kian Peng's first question is: why did SILE not put in safeguards earlier? Sir, I cannot speak for SILE. I assume that they, perhaps, expected lawyers to be more honest than what has turned out to be the case, at least, with regard to some of them; and, prior to COVID-19, examinations were usually conducted physically. So, I do not think SILE has that much experience conducting it in this format. Second, with regard to whether there were earlier cases, Sir, what I can say is: SILE says that it has not found situations of such cheating. I drew a distinction between that and whether something like that has actually happened.

There was a second supplementary question, Minister, about second chances.

My apologies. On whether it should be a question of second chances, I think the way we ought to approach it is this. The first point should be: what is the offence and who committed the offence? The offence here is cheating – which is serious. Who committed it? Trainee lawyers – that is also serious, doubly serious. You start with that and the message has got to go out to others that all of this will be dealt with very seriously. I do not think anyone can dispute that.

Second, at the same time, what is the right penalty? As I have said, that is before the Courts, so, we need to be careful. But I think we can say this much. These are young people. Does that mean that we forever prevent them from practising? I think most people would say that would sound very harsh. So, what is the appropriate penalty, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, but also their age and should they forever be prevented from being lawyers, being called to the Bar? I think most people would think that is probably too harsh.

Should they face significant sanctions that bring across the seriousness of the conduct? I think most people would agree with that. Within that framework, how the Courts decide, I think we have to wait and see.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Speaker. This question is akin to what Minister has just responded to, in relation to recommending having a rehabilitative nature or giving these trainee solicitors a second chance: whether we can also explore recommending that these trainee lawyers be conditionally called, continue to have close supervision by their supervising solicitors or representative from the Law Society and serve the community by volunteering in cases through the Legal Aid Bureau or the Criminal Legal Aid schemes, until they are deemed satisfied by their supervising solicitors.

I think the points made are interesting. As to whether they need close supervision, at the age of 23 or 25, I do not think you need to have close supervision to know that you ought not to be cheating in an examination, because, being Singaporeans, they would have gone through examinations for the most part of their lives and one hopes that this was not earlier practised.

I think there are some merits in some of the other points about requiring them to do some service to the community. But these are not things that are decided by the Government. We can decide as a matter of policy in future under the law, but for these specific cases, these are matters that are between the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Law Society to make suggestions and for the Courts to decide.

6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in view of the various lockdowns in China due to the latest COVID-19 outbreak, what is the assessed impact to supply chains and rising prices in Singapore; (b) which industries or goods and services have been or are anticipated to be most badly hit; and (c) whether any further measures are being taken to alleviate this impact, particularly for the availability and accessibility of essential goods and services.

Mr Speaker, the recent outbreaks of COVID-19 cases in China have prompted movement controls to be imposed in various Chinese cities, including Shanghai. As a major supplier of many goods to the world, the reduction in economic activity in China will, inevitably, lead to some supply chain disruptions, particularly delays in the fulfilment of manufacturing orders and shipping time. However, cargo is still able to leave from Shanghai port and, where necessary, is being redirected to other ports in China or other transport modes, such as air.

Industries in Singapore will feel the impact of the supply chain disruptions to varying degrees, depending on their dependence on imported supplies from China and their contingency plans. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, many companies have strengthened their business continuity plans (BCPs) and supply chain resilience plans, which include holding more inventory buffers and diversifying their supplier sources to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions.

Our key imports from China include electronics, machinery and metals. These are, primarily, intermediate goods that are required by companies in the manufacturing and construction sectors. Based on feedback from companies in these sectors, we understand that most of them have been able to cope with the delays in shipments from China thus far.

We also do not expect the lockdowns in the Shanghai port to significantly affect Singapore's supplies of essential food and healthcare items, as our reliance on China is relatively low and the cities where we import most of our food supplies are not classified as high risk ones for now. The Government will continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach of import diversification, local production and stockpiling, which will help to minimise supply shocks.

Nonetheless, as the lockdowns in China have further strained global supply chains, which are already under stress due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, they are likely to exacerbate global inflationary pressures in the near term. How the effects play out over the longer term will depend on the scale and extent of the lockdowns and their impact on China's economy.

The Government recognises that rising cost pressures and higher frequency of supply disruptions have affected businesses. To cope with these challenges, some businesses have had to hold higher inventory buffers which will require more working capital. To support companies with their cashflow needs, we had announced at Budget 2022 an extension of the Temporary Bridging Loan (TBL) programme and the enhanced Trade Loan Scheme up to 30 September 2022. In addition, the three rounds of tightening of Singapore's monetary policy over the past six months should also help moderate the pass-through effects of external inflationary pressures.

Furthermore, the Government has announced more assistance for lower-income households to cope with higher prices. As the Minister for Finance mentioned in his Ministerial Statement just last month on 4 April 2022 in Parliament, the Social Service Offices, or SSOs, will provide a minimum duration of six months' support for all new ComCare Short- to Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) clients who apply between April and September this year. Households which are already on ComCare SMTA can also have their assistance extended for at least another three months, if they require further help.

The SSOs will continue to exercise flexibility to provide those in need with financial assistance and support. This includes providing ComCare recipients with more cash assistance during this period to cope with inflationary pressures. We will, certainly, continue to monitor the situation closely.

7 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister in light of the tighter monetary policy stance taken by MAS (a) what is the projected impact on our trade exports from the strengthening of the Singapore dollar; (b) how will the Government ensure that the strengthened Singapore dollar does not adversely impact our export competitiveness in the long run; and (c) whether the Ministry will continue to strengthen the Singapore dollar if core inflation does not moderate over the next few months.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) monetary policy is aimed at keeping inflation low, especially over the medium term. Achieving low inflation also supports sustained economic growth.

MAS seeks to achieve this through an exchange rate-centred monetary policy, in particular, by managing the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of Singapore's major trading partners. When inflationary pressures build up, MAS allows the trade-weighted exchange rate to appreciate faster, thereby helping to reduce imported inflation. MAS has tightened its monetary policy stance three times since October 2021, when the Authority shifted to a slight appreciation of the policy band within which the exchange rate is managed. This has been in line with rising global price pressures and the improvement in external economic conditions.

The strengthening of the Singapore dollar is necessary to dampen inflation and to help preserve the purchasing power of businesses and households. It is not expected to have a significant negative impact on Singapore's exports. Growth in non-oil domestic exports has remained firm in Q1 2022. With continuing uncertainty in the global economic environment, Singapore's exports are, primarily, dependent on demand rather than our exchange rate. This is borne out in EDB's latest survey of Business Expectations of the Manufacturing Sector, which showed that the Singapore dollar exchange rate is not a key limiting factor for manufacturing firms' export orders. Singapore's exports are, generally, high value-added products and services where demand is less sensitive to price and, therefore, exchange rate changes. Further, a stronger exchange rate helps reduce the import costs faced by our export industries.

MAS expects core inflation to continue to rise in the coming months before peaking at around 4% in Q3 this year. Inflation is, however, expected to remain at elevated rates for some time, higher than what we have experienced in recent years. This has, primarily, been due to pressures in global energy and other commodity markets.

However, because MAS began shifting its policy stance early, it has been able to respond to rising inflationary pressure through gradual shifts in exchange rate policy, including in its latest April Monetary Policy Statement. Had MAS not begun tightening policy last year, ahead of many central banks, it would have had to allow for a steeper appreciation of the exchange rate.

MAS' monetary policy response is also part of the Government's multi-pronged strategy to deal with rising inflationary pressures. As Members know, the Government has set aside considerable resources to help Singapore businesses, especially SMEs, and our households cope with higher costs.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. One, how does MAS expect the strengthening of the Singapore dollar to affect Singapore's GDP forecast for the year? Two, the tightening effects of our monetary policy are, eventually, relative to what other countries have similarly done. So, how has the surge in the US dollar dampened the effects of the measures to tighten or strengthen the Singapore dollar, and if so, will further measures be needed?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. In the absence of further disruptions caused by the Ukraine war or a severe setback in trajectory of the pandemic, the Singapore economy should grow at an above-trend pace for the second consecutive year at around 3% to 5% this year. The April 2022 Monetary Policy Statement has reaffirmed MAS' assessment of this GDP growth forecast range, barring significant external shocks that I mentioned earlier. And MAS' monetary policy stance is consistent with the macroeconomic outcome of GDP growth within this forecast range.

As I have mentioned in my original answer, MAS manages the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of Singapore's major trading partners, within the policy band. So, any bilateral exchange rate movement will, accordingly, have a more muted impact on the Singapore dollar's effective exchange rate, which remains in line with MAS' monetary policy stance, as announced in April.

But MAS will continue to focus on medium-term price stability and avoid sudden large shifts in policy and, in aggregate, will remain vigilant to developments in the external environment and their impact on the Singapore economy.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his clarification. I wonder, in light of what he shared about how MAS has allowed three separate adjustments to the band since last year, I would note that the Singapore dollar has only appreciated, depending on how one measures it – between 1.5% and about 2.7% or 2.8% since then. Of course, inflation rates are significantly higher than that. I am wondering whether a stronger appreciation of the Singapore dollar may be warranted and if this is a consideration that MAS will seriously consider in the months ahead.

I thank the Member for his question. We do not give advance guidance of future exchange rate policy. But, as I mentioned earlier on, MAS will continue to focus on medium-term price stability and avoid sudden large shifts in policy. But the key thing is that because of the way in which our exports and imports are structured, the impact on price competitiveness vis-à-vis our exports is not heavily affected. I think that is quite critical.

The second part is that we will continue to strengthen our companies, as well as the export competitiveness, but I think the appreciation of the slope will help our exports to remain competitive in the long run.

8 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister in light of rising interest rates (a) whether there has been an increasing trend over the past year in the number of financially-distressed consumers who have sought debt management assistance; (b) whether the Government intends to introduce measures to afford temporary respite to consumers and businesses who encounter short-term liquidity issues; and (c) what are some foreseeable knock-on impacts.

The number of financially-distressed consumers who have sought assistance from banks is not high and has been decreasing over the past year. Broader indicators also suggest that the household and corporate debt situation in Singapore remains resilient on the whole.

The proportion of non-performing mortgages has remained low, at less than 1% last year. And the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) stress test suggests that the median household's mortgage servicing ratio should remain manageable, even under scenarios of significantly higher interest rates or lower incomes.

The proportion of non-performing corporate loans has also remained low, at about 2.6%. Here, too, MAS' stress test suggests that debt servicing of Singapore-listed firms is likely to remain manageable as interest rates rise, with most firms having sufficient earnings to cover their interest expenses and cash reserves to provide buffers.

Industry-wide credit relief measures have been gradually withdrawn, in line with the broadening of the economic recovery and the steady decline in the number of applications for assistance. These measures, introduced in March 2020, were meant to provide short-term relief and support to individuals and SMEs, as stringent public health measures led to temporary cashflow difficulties.

Conversely, recent market-driven interest rate increases have been accompanied by continuing income growth. This mitigates their impact on the debt-servicing ability of most borrowers. Indeed, the debt relief schemes introduced during the pandemic are not meant to insulate borrowers from the normalisation of interest rates.

However, a small segment of households, especially those with higher leverages, could be more constrained by higher interest rates. So, they should approach their lenders early to explore possible loan refinancing and repayment solutions.

For financially-distressed HDB homeowners, MAS has worked with MND, HDB, MOM and financial institutions to establish standardised interventions when late repayments occur. These include potential loan restructuring solutions, early referrals to appropriate social service agencies and, in certain limited cases, helping them obtain alternative HDB accommodation where foreclosures are unavoidable. Likewise, companies with low net profit margins should approach their lenders early to work out suitable loan repayment schemes and plans.

More broadly, everyone should exercise caution in their new borrowings. Households and businesses should plan for future and further interest rate increases and be sure of their ability to service their loans before making additional long-term financial commitments.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his detailed answers. I have two supplementary questions. First, the reason why I am asking this question is because I am concerned about the slow, but then, eventually, rapid boil from the rising interest rates, in particular, the impact on the rising cash outlays by households and businesses, particularly from the cascading effect of the interest rate.

So, my first question: is it possible to assess the rising cash outflows and its impact on households from the rising interest rates for this year and next?

The second question is probably what is the proportion of Singaporean households vulnerable and likely to turn vulnerable at the margin, rather than currently vulnerable, as mentioned by the Minister of State. And what can they do now as Singaporean households and businesses mostly affected by the potentially slow, but then, rapidly boiling effects of rising interest rates, as we go forward beyond the second half of this year?

I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his supplementary question. Most households should still be able to service their mortgages and other debt obligations, as Singapore's domestic interest rates pick up alongside global rates. I would like to frame my answer, quite helpfully, with regard to the mortgage as well as the total debt servicing ratio, which I think covers quite a lot of what the Member is concerned about.

The total debt servicing ratio framework (TDSR) captures a borrower's monthly expenses on all types of debt, including mortgages, car loans and unsecured debt, as a proportion of income. The overall debt servicing ability of households has, thus far, remained manageable, with the median TDSR being 43% last year. This is well within the recently tightened TDSR threshold of 55%. So, 43% median TDSR last year and the tightened TDSR threshold at 55%.

But, beyond mortgages, MAS has also imposed rules for car loans, as well as unsecured credit, to encourage prudent borrowing. This has helped the credit profile across these consumer loan products to remain healthy. The proportion of credit card rollover balances, as a share of GDP, for example, has declined since the pre-pandemic period from 1.3% in Q4 2019, to about 1% as at end 2021, and the charge-off rates have similarly decreased from 6.3% in Q4 2019, to 4.4% as at end 2021. In addition, only 0.01% of borrowers have defaulted on car loans granted by financial institutions, as at end 2021.

For the Member's second question on what consumers can do, I think that, generally, consumers can seek assistance for their outstanding debt. For example, consumers in financial distress can seek help from Credit Counselling Singapore for debt management assistance or consider taking up commercial products, such as debt consolidation plans, that may alleviate their repayment burdens.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Can I ask if MAS coordinates with other agencies in the Government to look at the exposure of households to unsecured loans provided by retailers, or consumer retailers since this would be part of the broader landscape of exposure, especially with concerns about economic shocks coming from outside?

I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary question. The answer is yes. We have worked with Credit Counselling Singapore and also gone upstream with regard to ensuring that consumers and borrowers have increased their financial literacy, in terms of new kinds of products that the Member has mentioned.

Consumers, borrowers, members of the public can go on to MoneySense.gov.sg – that is a website that we continue to build at MAS – to help consumers understand their credit profiles, what kind of products are available on the market and also to exercise prudence in their borrowing, particularly in an environment of heightened interest rates.

9 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there will be guidelines or criteria developed for the reactivation of TraceTogether and SafeEntry as contact tracing tools; and (b) what examples of future situations where these tools may be used so that the public can take the necessary steps to retain their tokens where necessary.

10 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the criteria considered by the Ministry in deciding tolower the DORSCON level from Orange to Yellow; and (b) whether the Ministry will relax the rules and allow unvaccinated residents to enter malls and to dine in the food and beverage outlets together with the rest of Singaporeans.

11 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) in light of the easing of the COVID-19 safe management measures, whether community mask-off events, such as temple dinners where food is served, will be allowed; and (b) if so, under what conditions.

12 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health given a 7% increase in the age-standardised death rate in 2021 that bucked the downward trend in previous years (a) what is the Ministry's analysis of the reasons behind this increase; (b) what is the number of excess deaths due to COVID-19; and (c) what formula is used in the Ministry's calculation of excess deaths.

13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will conduct a study on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (i) non-COVID-19 patients facing delayed treatment, especially older ones with chronic conditions and (ii) the public healthcare system, in view of the patient backlog from the periodic suspension of non-essential services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I address Question Nos 9 to 13 and also the Question for Oral Answer filed by Mr Louis Chua1 for the Sitting on or after 10 May, please?

Please do.

With the pandemic situation stabilised, the Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF) took decisive steps to open up social and economic activities to almost pre-COVID-19 norms. So, to Ms Sylvia Lim's question, temples can start to organise dinners, barring any changes in rules later.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if individuals who are not fully vaccinated can be allowed to enter malls and dine in F&B outlets. I would like to clarify that they can enter malls as we have significantly removed vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) for non-fully vaccinated persons.

However, we still need to remain cautious because the next infection wave is highly possible. We also need to watch out for new variants that may threaten us again. Hence, MTF decided to maintain VDS for the three most risky settings: nightlife outlets with dancing, events with more than 500 participants at any point in time and then, F&B outlets where there is a constant flow of diners who are mask-off and interacting. For F&B outlets, we will, however, not deploy TraceTogether and SafeEntry, but instead put the onus on customers to ensure that they are fully vaccinated before visiting an F&B outlet.

We will continue to review our VDS measures as the pandemic situation evolves.

We are taking a cautious "step down but not dismantle" posture for our public health measures. If the situation requires, we will have to step up VDS and reactivate TraceTogether and SafeEntry. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked what the criteria are to reactivate these measures. It is a matter of judgement, depending on the severity of the situation. We will have to take into account if there is a new variant of concern, whether it is more severe or more infectious than the Omicron variant, whether past infections and current vaccines continue to confer strong protection against the new variant and how all these affect our hospital capacity.

I can understand that some members of the public and Members of the House want a system, with transparent and clear triggering points, but I am afraid this is not possible when we are in a pandemic crisis with fog of war. Through MTF's actions over the years, I hope the public would also appreciate where we are coming from. We do what is necessary to protect lives when danger is upon us and we will step down measures when they are no longer needed, no longer necessary, so that people can resume their normal lives.

So, the best step for the public to take is not to delete your TraceTogether app and not to throw away your TraceTogether tokens. Please keep them.

Members asked about the Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON) framework. DORSCON was established after SARS in 2003, then reviewed and progressively improved upon from the experiences drawn from managing the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, and the coordination for the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus and Ebola Virus Disease. Post-COVID-19, we will, certainly, review it further, along with our response measures, given all that we have learnt during this pandemic crisis.

The DORSCON framework was developed as a tool for Ministries and agencies to coordinate and execute the Government's response to outbreaks of infectious diseases. By and large, it has served its purpose well in this pandemic.

In the initial phase of the pandemic, MTF decided that, for transparency, we would announce the DORSCON level and colour code publicly, too. This would help alert the public to the need for personal vigilance and social responsibility. However, it had also led to certain public reactions, such as the rush to the supermarkets. This is one key issue for review as DORSCON is meant to bolster preparedness, not to induce public anxiety.

A key factor to consider in our review of the DORSCON framework is that after more than two years of the pandemic, the Government and our society have learnt a lot about pandemic response. We have developed a comprehensive response system, covering health protocols, border controls and safe management of social and economic activities. It is also tiered and differentiated, catering to different activities and settings, such as schools, offices, public spaces, eating places, nightlife, events and so on, with various severity conditions.

Therefore, from a public communications point of view, we believe that the public now pays much less attention to the DORSCON colour code and takes care to understand the various public health measures in detail, and then respond and do their part accordingly, be it taking vaccination, wearing masks or abiding by the safe management measures (SMMs). So, I am confident that today, we have a much more sophisticated public that understands what they need to do when a pandemic turns for the worse.

The response of the public and the contribution of everyone in our society are, ultimately, what give us resilience during a pandemic outbreak. So, the DORSCON framework is most likely still relevant, but it needs to be part of a larger emergency preparation and public communications framework that we have already developed and people now understand.

Members also asked about "excess deaths". Let me first explain what it is. It means comparing death rates across the years, taking into account the changing age profile of the population. If the death rate goes up in a pandemic, above that expected in the absence of a pandemic and over what is expected from population ageing, it means there are excess deaths.

For Singapore, our age-standardised death rate has decreased from 2017 to 2020, from 563 per 100,000 residents to 519 per 100,000 residents. In 2021, the rate increased to 557 per 100,000 residents, almost back to 2017 levels. So, 2021 is about the same as 2017, just a notch lower. So, there are excess deaths in 2021, compared to 2020.

Mr Leon Perera asked why that is so and how we calculate excess deaths. We used well-established, internationally-practised methods, including age adjustments. There are excess deaths in 2021 because there had been a global pandemic, causing millions of deaths around the world, and Singapore was not exempted.

During a pandemic, excess deaths will be higher than officially reported deaths directly caused by the disease. To illustrate, a recent WHO analysis of excess deaths found that while the officially reported number of COVID-19-related deaths around the world is slightly over six million, "excess deaths" during this pandemic is 15 million – about 2.5 times more.

There are a few reasons to explain the difference in the two numbers. One, in some parts of the world, there can be under-reporting in regions where testing is insufficient or where data is difficult to collate. But, in Singapore, this is not an issue. Two, there are infected persons who died of other illnesses, where the COVID-19 infection might have been a contributory factor but not the main cause. Three, care-seeking behaviours changed. For example, individuals with chronic conditions may put off their check-ups, treatments and medications during the pandemic, to their own detriment. Four, there are many regions where their healthcare systems were overwhelmed. When that happens, proper care is denied and the people who suffer are not just the COVID-19-infected patients, but everyone who needs hospital care.

Our excess deaths in 2021 among Singapore residents is about 1,535. That is for 2021, when we had a Delta wave, after accounting for ageing. COVID-19 deaths as at end 2021 among residents is 804, or about 52% of excess deaths. The remainder excess deaths could be due to some of the factors I explained earlier, except under-reporting, which is not an issue in an urban environment like Singapore; also, the last reason I mentioned, hospitals being overwhelmed. That is not a big factor here, because we prioritised the protection of our healthcare system, going into a circuit breaker when necessary. So, although our hospitals came under significant pressure at the height of the infection waves, they were not overwhelmed, and hospitals could continue to give priority to serious and urgent cases.

As mentioned in the Ministry of Health (MOH) press release on 24 March 2022, MOH is continuing to collect and analyse the data, particularly the recent Omicron data, to find out more comprehensively the impact of this crisis on Singapore residents and we will release a special report soon to estimate the excess deaths over the past two and half years of the pandemic and the key factors causing the excess deaths.

I should emphasise that whether it is official COVID-19 death toll or excess deaths, Singapore will have one of the lowest rates in the world, amongst countries that have chosen to live with COVID-19 and resumed normal lives, and that is because of the cooperation of everyone in Singapore and the effectiveness of protecting our healthcare system.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for Health as well for the response, including setting out some of the criteria which will be taken into consideration for the reactivation of the TraceTogether programme. I have a supplementary question and it was an article in The Straits Times yesterday, which said, and I quote, "TraceTogether tokens and even SafeEntry Gateway boxes are Government properties and throwing them away could be considered an offence", and it then goes on to list certain offences under the Penal Code, Vandalism Act and Computer Misuse Act.

I think, this has caused some alarm among people who may have inadvertently disposed of or misplaced their tokens. So, it will be very helpful to have some clarification on what to do with these tokens and what happens if there has been any inadvertent disposal, as well as some assurance in terms of the data that is or is not connected while the app remains in the phone.

I thank the Member for her question. I read the article as well and I thought there might be a supplementary question on it. I will need to check with GovTech with regard to the status of all the equipment. As for those who have inadvertently disposed of them, do report them. I am sure the Government agencies will be as helpful as they can to try to replace them. I think our key consideration is not so much about protection of the equipment, but to make sure that should we have another variant of concern, businesses, individuals, we are ready to respond.

Mr Speaker, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin also asked about the data. I mentioned this in an earlier reply, which is, that for events, for example, nightlife with dancing, where SafeEntry data is still collected, it will be purged very quickly.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. He mentioned earlier that vaccination-differentiated safe management measures (VDS) will still be needed for events of more than 500 participants. Can he clarify that this also applies to the community dinners that I asked for, meaning that, if the number of participants is expected to be more than 500, then the organisers would have to check that the participants are vaccinated?

Second, the Minister mentioned that these dinners can proceed. What about events or activities that are associated with the dinners, like auctions and stage performances like "getai"? Are all these also allowed?

The answer to both questions is yes. So, if the temple dinner has more than 500 people, they ought to install a SafeEntry check-in counter; and then the auction and performance can proceed.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, I am trying to see whether the unvaccinated can live their lives normally, as with the other Singaporeans. I spoke to some unvaccinated people and they shared that, for many of them, they choose not to be vaccinated because they are worried about the severe adverse reactions.

The Minister had said that the health care system is not overwhelmed, the majority of Singaporeans are vaccinated. So, is there any way in which we can really consider removing some of the VDS, so that those who choose not to be vaccinated for whatever reasons can lead their lives as per the rest of Singaporeans? There are only about 3.5% of such people and, really, they ought to take responsibility for their own decision not to be vaccinated.

Indeed, we all take responsibility for our own health and make our own decisions regarding our own health status, including vaccinations. The issue that we do need to consider here is that, in a pandemic crisis, individual decisions also affect the society and the healthcare system.

The Member would remember that 3.5% of our population is not fully vaccinated. They accounted for 20% of ICU cases and deaths and also add on a certain workload to our healthcare system, which, in extremis, when the numbers are huge or when we have a big wave, may mean adding a lot of pressure to our healthcare system. When that happens, it is not just the unvaccinated who will suffer, not those who are infected that will suffer, but everyone who requires hospital care, acute care and emergency services will suffer. So, it is because of that, that the decision not to vaccinate yourself is no longer just about yourself; it is also a role for us to protect the whole society.

Having said that, the last time the Member asked me that question, since then to now, we have relaxed many of the VDS restrictions for this group, because, given the current situation, we do not think it is needed. But we do worry about the next variant of concern. Most likely, it will evolve and emerge in the months to come. So, given that posture, I think, just maintain these three most risky settings where VDS will still apply and we will continue to review the situation.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers and just a procedural clarification. If I heard correctly, the Minister said he would answer all questions until Question No 13. I am just wondering if he has answered Question No 13 as well, which is about the impact of restraints placed on non-urgent treatments and testing during COVID-19 and what backlog has there been for such treatments and testing, and what has that impact been.

I thank the Member for the question, I intend to answer Question No 13. So, whether the Ministry will conduct a study on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various aspects, as I mentioned, we have issued a Press Statement on 24 March, and said that we will collate all the data, and do a proper study. It is a special report on the impact of the entire pandemic and we will answer some of the questions, including the data required.

14 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the format of the Government's after-action review (AAR) on COVID-19; and (b) whether it plans to share the AAR's findings or recommendations with the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this question on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Sir, last July, in reply to a Parliamentary Question from the Leader of the Opposition, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the Government will conduct an after-action review (AAR) of our COVID-19 response when the situation has stabilised and we are out of the woods.

Sir, our response to COVID-19 can be characterised by two broad phases. In the first phase, which was from the start of the outbreak to August last year, we focused on containing the spread of the virus. Thereafter, when we had vaccinated a high proportion of people in Singapore, we shifted our approach to learn to live with the virus. For now, the pandemic is still not over, but the situation has improved. Therefore, the Government has started work on the AAR, focusing on the first phase of our experience, in other words, what happened from the start of the outbreak till August 2021.

The AAR is intended as a broad ranging exercise to thoroughly analyse our experiences and review the lessons learnt, so that we can be better prepared for the next pandemic. We have asked the former Head of Civil Service, Mr Peter Ho, to oversee this process and he has agreed to do so. The Government will share the findings and lessons with the public, when the AAR is completed.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I thank the Minister for Finance for answering the question. Sir, as the Minister Teo Chee Hean has alluded to, last July, Senior Minister mentioned that there were particularly severe challenges for the Government and there were many valuable lessons to be learnt from COVID-19. Likewise, only a few weeks ago, at the Administrative Service Appointment and Promotion ceremony, the Prime Minister said we will be throwing away valuable lessons for which we have paid dearly.

Sir, the public has a limited to unknown perspective on the short-comings or lessons that were paid for dearly during COVID-19 and how we can be better ready as a country, both physically and psychologically, when another pathogen or emergency hits our shores. I thank the Minister for confirming that an AAR, led by a former Head of Civil Service, is going to be conducted. Can he also share how many participants are envisaged to participate in this AAR, will it be a whole-of-Government exercise? Secondly, would this exercise also include reviewing emergency preparedness scenarios for the country and other scenarios, such as building up indigenous manufacturing capability in critical areas, for example?

Sir, the AAR has already started, as I mentioned just now. It is, indeed, a whole-of-Government endeavour. Mr Peter Ho has been given access to all information with regard to the Government's response. He will do a thorough exercise in reviewing the Government's response, which is our intent, to learn thoroughly and rigorously from what we have experienced so far, in order that we can do better for the next pandemic, which will surely come.

This was also the approach we took when we reviewed the lessons from SARS. Which is why, as Minister Ong Ye Kung said just now, we had put in place a DORSCON framework, we set up the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID). Likewise, we will learn many lessons, many useful lessons from COVID-19, particularly the first phase of the experience. And we will use these lessons to improve our response for the next pandemic.

To the second question that Mr Pritam Singh asked, indeed, the lessons that we hope to derive from this AAR will be wide-ranging and will include how we can be more resilient as a nation, how we can improve our supply chains and how we can improve our national resiliency in a broad range of areas.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Speaker. Can I ask the Minister whether the AAR will also include a more detailed assessment of how our $100 billion COVID-19 spending has been spent?

Sir, the AAR will be broad-ranging. As I have said, it will look at a whole range of issues. There are many things that the AAR will cover. But the focus will really be on issues of strategic and national importance which will enable us to learn and do better and be better prepared for the next pandemic. I am sure everyone will agree that it is in our shared interest to achieve that objective.

The question that Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked, really, is more pertaining to accountability with regard to monies spent, which is an important issue. But I think it is a slightly different one and MOF will be happy to take that up. We do that with regard to all areas of spending and, where relevant, we will put out information on how the monies are spent. But let the AAR focus on the more strategic and important issues that will enable us to be better prepared for the next pandemic.

15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the previous ban on visitors to preschools, including parents and parents of newly-enrolled children, still applies.

Mr Speaker, in line with changes in our national COVID-19 posture, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has progressively eased visitor restrictions in our preschools. Since November last year, parents can accompany their newly-enrolled children and can do so for half a day for the first two days of preschool. For children with additional needs, preschools may exercise flexibility and allow these parents to accompany their child for a longer period. From 24 November last year, external photographers and videographers were also allowed to enter the preschool for the kindergarten graduation ceremonies.

With the recent easing of community measures, ECDA has further eased visitor restrictions to support children's learning and development. From 26 April 2022, parents may enter the preschool to attend parent-teacher conferences or as volunteers. Prospective parents may also enter the preschool to tour the preschool premises.

However, casual visitors remain restricted to lower transmission risks, as the majority of preschoolers are ineligible for vaccination. Visitors to the preschools will also be subjected to prevailing safe management measures, such as health and temperature checks and keeping their masks on at all times.

The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling –

16 To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to enrolment into Day Activity Centres (DACs) (a) whether DACs can cope with the demand in the next five years; and (b) if not, whether there are plans to (i) reduce the average waiting time for enrolment and (ii) increase the staff support in this sector.

Question No 16, please.

Mr Speaker, as of April 2022, there were 31 MSF-funded Day Activity Centres (DACs) with a total capacity of over 1,700 places and an overall utilisation rate of about 78%.

There are, currently, eight DACs with no vacancies. When individuals apply to DACs with no vacancies, SG Enable will refer the caregivers to other DACs with spare capacity. SG Enable also explores alternative support services with the caregivers, such as home-based services for the individual and respite care services for the caregivers.

In October last year, MSF increased funding for DACs by some 20%, or $3 million per year. The increased funding will allow our DACs to hire more care staff to increase their quality of care and service standards, especially for clients with higher support needs. We are also studying the longer-term demand for DACs and will look into setting up new DACs in areas where demand is expected to exceed the current supply.

MSF will continually monitor and review our funding support and programmes to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and their caregivers.

17 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the easing of safe management measures (SMMs) and workers returning to their workplace, whether there are plans by the Ministry to go beyond encouraging employers to retain and promote flexible work arrangements, such as telecommuting and staggered work hours, as a permanent feature of the workplace.

Mr Speaker, even as we continue to ease safe management measures (SMMs) at the workplace, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) remain relevant to businesses. Many employers see the value of retaining FWAs as it not only strengthens business resilience but also improves talent retention and recruitment. A recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies on workplace arrangements also found that around eight in 10 respondents who telecommuted most or all of the time felt that they were productive in doing so. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) own surveys show that the majority of employers are keen to continue FWAs even after the pandemic ends, given the benefits FWAs bring to both employers as well as employees.

The tripartite partners agree that employers should sustain FWAs as a permanent feature of the workplace. A tripartite statement was released in April to encourage employers to continue doing so. In the last two years, employers implemented FWAs, especially telecommuting, as an urgent measure for public health resilience, even when they were unsure that this was good for productivity. For the provision of FWAs to be a sustainable and effective permanent measure, employers will need sufficient time and support to find the right calibration that works best for their employees while meeting business needs. After all, workplace settings and business needs differ across industries and jobs, and we also know that different employees have different needs for FWAs.

Over the next few years, the tripartite partners will do more to strengthen training to equip companies with the know-how to implement FWAs in a win-win and sustainable manner, such as in the areas of HR and job redesign. We will also partner our Work-Life Ambassadors on the ground to support the implementation of FWAs.

As laid out in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, we will also bring more companies on board the voluntary Tripartite Standard on FWAs. This means having a clear policy on how to request FWAs and managing employees' expectations on its responsible use, timely communication of outcomes of FWA requests as well as fair and objective evaluation of employees' FWA requests. The Public Service has taken the lead to adopt the Tripartite Standard on FWAs.

These efforts will put companies in good stead to comply with the upcoming Tripartite Guidelines that will be introduced by 2024, which will make it a requirement for employers to fairly and properly consider FWA requests. Together, these efforts will establish the norm that it is acceptable to request for FWAs while maintaining employers' prerogative to assess and decide on FWA requests, based on their business and operational needs.

18 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the easing of safe management measures, what are the plans to assist Safe Distancing Ambassadors to transit to new jobs and channel them to sunrise industries.

19 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the revised safe management measures that came into effect on 29 March 2022 and the recovery of the economy (a) what are the efforts to promote more local employment; (b) how is the Ministry helping sectors that are facing a shortage of local workers; and (c) whether the Ministry will relax foreign labour policies should the manpower crunch continue.

20 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the reopening of our economy (a) which are the sectors facing a severe shortage of manpower especially foreign workers; and (b) what are the measures taken by the Ministry to help these industries and companies to ride out the labour shortage so as not to hamper the recovery of our economy.

21 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider permitting cleaning companies to recruit cleaning workers from a wider range of countries to reduce the risk of labour shortages.

22 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past five years (a) what is the number of local part-time food and beverage workers; and (b) of these workers, how many are students.

23 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the easing of safe management measures, whether the Ministry will be working on measures to encourage and divert manpower resources from positions no longer needed, such as safe distancing ambassadors, to industries that are facing manpower shortages, such as food services and retail.

24 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of temporary workers who are currently working on COVID-19-related jobs, such as Safe Distancing Ambassadors or SafeEntry checkers; (b) what are the other employment opportunities available to these workers as the safe management measures are being stepped down; and (c) how can such workers be assisted in seeking new and longer-term employment.

25 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are planned measures to support businesses, particularly in the food and beverage and catering sectors, who are having difficulty in hiring staff amidst the reopening; and (b) if so, what are these measures.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to take Question Nos 18 to 25 together?

Yes, please.

As economic recovery gains momentum, we recognise that some segments of the economy may find it challenging to fill job vacancies amidst the tight labour market. In my reply, I will be addressing the questions that Members of this House have asked about these manpower shortages, as well as the longer-term job opportunities of workers employed in short-term COVID-19 roles.

To Ms Poh Li San's question, the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) they are the hardest hit as they rely most heavily on migrant workers. As Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin have pointed out, our industries, such as food services, cleaning, retail, tourism and aviation, that were affected by safe management measures and international travel restrictions are also facing a manpower crunch now as they rebuild their manpower with the reopening. There also continue to be many vacancies in outward-oriented industries, such as information and communications, and financial services.

A significant part of the manpower crunch that we are experiencing today is, in large part, due to the impact of COVID-19. The balance, albeit a smaller part, is due to cyclical reasons. In the last two years, our non-resident workforce declined sharply as businesses were battered by the pandemic. However, while demand is recovering, border restrictions had dampened the regular inflow of foreign manpower. The Government has taken steps to resume the inflow of foreign workers to ease the manpower crunch and we, progressively, lifted border restrictions from late last year. Since then, non-resident employment growth had increased in the fourth quarter of 2021 for the first time in two years and picked up pace in the first quarter of 2022.

Most recently, we announced the removal of entry approval requirements for all pass types, including Work Permit holders in the CMP sectors. The number of CMP Work Permit holders in Singapore reached a two-year low in October 2021 but has since grown strongly by more than 40,000 to reach over 90% of pre-pandemic numbers. Our businesses now have fuller confidence to bring their work pass holders into Singapore and the recent reopening of the Singapore-Malaysia land border should also further ease the labour market tightness in the months to come.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked what the Government is doing to enable Singapore to reopen our economy and reconnect with the world. MOM is working with MOT, MTI, STB and CAAS closely to provide targeted support for the tourism and aviation industries with additional foreign worker quotas on a time-limited basis, to ensure that they can quickly rebound and capture the opportunities.

Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about efforts to promote local employment. Government agencies are also working closely with industry and unions to promote good jobs and ramp up local hiring. For example, STB partnered NTUC, NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (NTUC's e2i), WSG and key trade associations and chambers (TACs) to launch the Tourism Careers Hub in January 2022. This hub facilitates job matching of local candidates with the tourism sector. It supports the upskilling of workers to meet evolving demands, as well as drives transformation efforts. CAAS is working with aviation firms to recall former employees and expand hiring. Both CAAS and STB have lined up recruitment activities, such as career fairs, in the next few months.

We will also continue to support our businesses to transform and to improve job quality to attract and retain local workers. For example, MTI recently announced the $70 million Food Services and Retail Business Revitalisation Package. In the cleaning sector, NEA has also been working with cleaning companies to adopt technologies, such as autonomous floor cleaning scrubbers and robotic solutions, to free up workers to meet the added demand for disinfection work. So, basically, MOM and MTI will work closely with TACs to study further ways to support both the retail and F&B sectors in terms of how to support their manpower needs in the immediate term.

We will also nudge and continue to support our businesses to hire locals. We have extended the Jobs Growth Incentive to September 2022 to support the hiring of mature local workers who are not in work for at least six months, persons with disabilities and ex-offenders. Employers can receive up to $21,600 per eligible hire over a 12-month period. There are also other pathways in which employers can tap on, such as the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme, and attachments under these pathways will allow employers to provide mature candidates with on-the-job training and evaluate their job-fit.

On top of that, the Government will also be disbursing the Small Business Recovery Grant (SBRG) from June this year and this provides $1,000 per local employee, up to $10,000 per firm.

Our efforts are paying off. I am encouraged to see that many businesses have been able to build up their local workforce to meet their manpower needs. Overall, resident employment grew by 71,300 in 2021 and the resident unemployment rate has recovered to pre-COVID-19 levels and there continues to be opportunities to hire more local workers.

First, employers should look to hire workers who were employed in short-term COVID-19 roles, such as Safe Distancing Ambassadors and vaccination centre workers, the same group that Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Sharael Taha have asked about. Around 6,400 of such workers were employed as of April 2022 by the public sector, Government-funded institutions or private sector medical service providers. Around 1,200 of these workers will be redeployed into longer-term roles, but the other 5,200 will be looking for new jobs when their contracts end over the coming months. WSG and NTUC's e2i will be providing employment facilitation support. Employers who are interested to consider these workers can reach out to WSG and NTUC's e2i. Many of these workers came from the F&B and Retail sectors and would, thus possess the relevant skill sets, as well as experience.

Second, employers can also consider hiring trainees who have gone through various attachment and training programmes under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package. There are 9,800 trainees who are still undergoing these programmes as at end February 2022, and they, too, will be looking for jobs in the near future. The Jobs Taskforce, which I chair, is working with sector agencies to place these trainees into suitable roles which make use of the industry-relevant skills and experience gained through the programmes.

Third, employers can also tap on a larger pool of local manpower by providing flexible work arrangements, including flexitime, flexi-place and part-time work.

Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked about the number of local part-time workers in F&B services for the last five years and the proportion who were students. The number of local part-time workers in F&B services remained stable at around 35,000, on average, over the last five years, of which about 15% were students. Part-time work can benefit both employers who need the manpower and workers who will not only earn an income but can also gain work experience for the future.

In conclusion, we expect labour market tightness to ease in the coming months as non-resident employment rebounds following significant relaxation of border restrictions. However, COVID-19 has underscored the importance of building resilient businesses. This is all the more important, given the uncertainties in the global geo-political and economic environment. Over-reliance on foreign workers will leave businesses open to and vulnerable to disruptions.

Therefore, I strongly encourage employers facing manpower shortages to utilise all the available support to press on with efforts to transform and become more manpower-lean, while tapping on the available sources of local workers that still exist to build up their local manpower core.

Order. End of Question Time. Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]

Mr Speaker, with your leave, may I correct a factual error in my reply at the 5 April 2022 Sitting to Question No 6?

Please do.

It was a question by Ms Joan Pereira on the safeguards to protect members of the public from recalcitrant sex offenders. Sir, I had said in my reply to Ms Joan Pereira that preventive detention (PD) sentences can range from seven to 14 years. [Please refer to "Safeguards to Protect Members of Public from Recalcitrant Sex Offenders", Official Report, 5 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 61, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

I misspoke. PD sentences range from seven to 20 years. Thank you, Sir.

Order. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Finance.

[(proc text) "to amend the Stamp Duties Act 1929", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 2006", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How) (on behalf of the Minister for National Development); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Mr Speaker, the amendments proposed today to the Constitution can be grouped into two parts. The first part amends Article 45 of the Constitution relating to the disqualification criteria for a Member of Parliament, or, in short, MP. The second part amends Articles 37E and 72 of the Constitution relating to the disqualification criteria for members of the Council of Presidential Advisers, or in short, CPA; and the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, or in short, PCMR. This is to align with the amendments to the disqualification criteria for an MP in the first part.

These proposed amendments arose from the Elections Department's review of our election processes and legislation after the General Election in 2020, or in short, GE2020. This is among other proposals, such as the possible introduction of postal voting for overseas Singaporeans and special arrangements for voters residing in some nursing homes, which I had shared in this House in March this year.

Let me now elaborate on the amendments under the first part.

Currently, under Article 45(1)(e) of the Constitution, a person is disqualified as an MP if he has been convicted by a Court in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year, or to a fine of not less than $2,000. The disqualification period is five years from the date the person is released from custody or when the fine is imposed. During this time, the person cannot stand for election as an MP.

The disqualification criteria are to ensure that MPs are persons with integrity and who adhere to high standards of conduct. Clause 3 of the Bill amends the current fine quantum in Article 45(1)(e) of "not less than $2,000" to "not less than $10,000". The current fine quantum of "not less than $2,000" has not been revised since Singapore's Independence.

Members may ask why the fine quantum was not changed earlier and what prompted the need to change this now. As part of the review which the Elections Department, or in short, ELD, undertook after GE2020, ELD noted that the MP disqualification criteria have not been revised since Independence and, thus, initiated a review of the criteria. While there was a related amendment to the Constitution in 2002, the focus of the amendment was to deal only with the anomalous situation of a disqualified MP not being able to continue sitting or voting in Parliament while his appeal was pending and did not cover the MP disqualification criteria per se.

ELD considered two reference points for the revised fine quantum. First, if we were to take into account inflation over the years, $2,000 would amount to about $8,000 today. Second, the revision took into account sentences handed down by our Courts today for committing serious tax evasion and corruption offences, which are relevant to the integrity of a person.

Notwithstanding the proposal to update the fine quantum, Singaporeans should reasonably expect that Members of this House, and those who aspire to be Members of this House, must hold themselves to the highest standards.

Members may also ask if the imprisonment term of one year requires revision. As part of its review, ELD examined the criteria in selected Commonwealth countries, such as Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK. For these countries, the imprisonment term for MP disqualification is either at least one year or at least two years. ELD's assessment is that Singapore's imprisonment term of one year remains at an appropriate threshold and does not require further revision for now.

Clause 3 also extends the disqualification due to conviction by a court of law beyond Singapore and Malaysia to any foreign court. With more Singaporeans living, travelling and conducting business in other countries, convictions by courts in other countries should be included in the disqualification criteria, since they are relevant in determining the fitness of the person for office. These overseas convictions must be for offences that would have been punishable by a Court in Singapore if they had been committed locally.

Currently, a Singapore Citizen who voluntarily acquires a foreign citizenship will be disqualified as an MP. However, Article 45(3) excludes a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland from the definition of a "foreign country". This exception is historic and is no longer relevant today. Thus, clause 3 also removes the outdated Article 45(3). An MP should be disqualified if he acquires citizenship of another country.

Next, let me elaborate on the amendments under the second part. Clauses 2 and 5 of the Bill to amend Articles 37E and 72 of the Constitution make similar changes to the disqualification criteria for members of CPA and PCMR with respect to the fine quantum and convictions by foreign courts of law. Similar to the amendments under the first part, the fine quantum criterion for disqualification from being a member of CPA and PCMR is proposed to be revised from "not less than $2,000" to "not less than $10,000". For membership to PCMR, clause 5 extends the disqualification due to a foreign conviction by "a court of law in Malaysia" to "any foreign court".

Finally, clause 6 sets out clearly that the amendments proposed today to the Constitution will apply to convictions which meet the new proposed criteria before the amendments come into force. As the disqualification criteria are imposed to ensure fitness of persons for office, prior convictions should be recognised as disqualifying, even if they happened before the date of operation of the amendments. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to bear in mind that the aim of this Bill is relatively narrow and coheres with the current policy underpinning the relevant articles in the Constitution.

In the main, it serves to update the disqualification criteria concerning criminal convictions for membership of Parliament as set out in Article 45 of the Constitution. In this regard, what is proposed, as mentioned by the hon Minister, is to revise the fine quantum from "not less than $2,000" to "not less than $10,000".

As a consequence, it is proposed that the disqualification criteria for a member of CPA and PCMR, as well as a candidate standing for election as the President be similarly updated.

As stated by the Elections Department in its press release, the proposed revision is to "account for inflation over the years" – the hon Minister said since the year of Independence, it is about $8,000 now – and ensure that the quantum "is commensurate with fines meted out for offences that are relevant to the integrity of the person".

In light of this background, unless an hon Member wishes to advocate a change in the current policy, which has been in place since Independence, the proposed "light touch" amendment to the Constitution should not raise controversy.

It may be useful to appreciate the underpinning of this policy. It is connected to the concept of universal suffrage – the right to vote for a candidate of his or her choice.

John Stuart Mill, a well-known English philosopher, stated as follows in his 1861 essay, "Representative Government": "There ought to be no pariahs in a full-grown and civilised nation; no persons disqualified, except through their own default."

Emeritus Prof Joseph Jaconelli, in his 2020 article entitled "Constitutional Disqualification", stated that whilst John Stuart Mill was addressing the question of the extent of the right to vote, the same point applies to the right to stand for office. He went on to state that: "It applies with greater force, since to provide otherwise would be to limit the range of choices available to the electorate."

In other words, our approach is to leave decisions on the electability of a candidate to an informed electorate unless the candidate has committed a serious offence which attracts a sentence of more than one year or, as proposed in this Bill, a fine of more than $10,000.

Even then, the automatic disqualification ceases after a five-year period, as provided for under Article 45(2) of the Constitution.

The approach in the United Kingdom (UK) and other countries is similar. Under the UK's Representation of the People Act, a person will be ineligible to stand for elections if he has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more.

For these reasons, I support the Bill. It is fair that the electorate is presented with the widest possible slate of candidates compatible with a minimum level of checks for the integrity of the person. It is also fair that a candidate's previous disqualification be reset after a certain period.

This Bill, however, relates not only to disqualification to enter into an election, but it also has an impact on the qualification to remain as an MP.

Currently, by default, both issues are tagged, in that the same criteria appy to a sitting MP. Hence, notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I feel it is necessary to signpost, for future consideration, the ability of an MP to continue in his or her office upon being convicted of a criminal offence whilst in office.

Just last month, The Guardian reported a case of a UK MP in the House of Commons who was convicted of sexually molesting a 15-year-old. He apparently did not resign immediately, although it has now been reported that he has since resigned. We can ask ourselves – what would be the case if this happened in Singapore? I dare say that a good number of Singaporeans outside this House would assume that the MP would automatically be disqualified from holding office as his conduct would have brought disrepute to the House and, quite frankly, our country, too.

That is not necessarily the case, however, if we look at the current provisions. As I mentioned earlier, the disqualification criteria for a candidate are the same as the disqualification criteria for an MP. This is provided for under Article 46 of the Constitution.

Hence, whether or not a sitting MP convicted of a crime will automatically be disqualified would depend on not just his conviction but his sentence. If the sentence of imprisonment is less than one year, then he is not automatically disqualified.

I did an informal survey of sentences imposed by the Courts in cases reported by the Straits Times between March and April this year. I noted the following cases.

A Singaporean male was convicted and sentenced to one week's jail for possession of obscene videos, including child sexual abuse material. Another Singaporean male who molested a female teenager by touching her soles and toes was sentenced to two weeks and five days' jail. In another case, a Singaporean male was convicted after pleading guilty to five counts of forgery for the purposes of cheating involving $9.7 million. He was sentenced to nine months' jail.

If an MP were to have committed any one of these offences, he would not be automatically disqualified. Of course, his tenure ceases automatically if he resigns from his party or if he "loses his whip", which is the Parliamentary parlance for being expelled from his political party. This latter ground does not affect independent MPs though.

There is a connected aspect to this issue which I seek to highlight. For professionals, such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, they would not be allowed to practise, so long as they are convicted of offences that involve moral turpitude, irrespective of the actual sentences. Civil servants and uniformed officers convicted of crimes may be dismissed, reduced in rank or otherwise punished, too.

It may be helpful for us, as a heuristic, to think of this as "two keys": the first, a qualification to enter into the profession; and, the second, a qualification to remain.

The question that arises for consideration is: what should be the corresponding standard of conduct dealing with criminal convictions imposed on Singaporean politicians? That is, what should be the strength of the second key for MP?

To me, this is a no-brainer. Whenever we, as MPs enter Parliament, we receive salutes from the uniformed officers on duty. This is meant to be a mark of respect for us as elected representatives of our country. Is it not anomalous that the saluting officer is held to a higher standard, as compared to us? This does not make sense.

Therefore, we might want to consider if we want to impose similar requirements on sitting MPs.

While this may be a simple enough task for this House to consider these issues, to implement a policy solution would require bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle. Without bipartisan support, there will be a serious potential for misinterpretation of the purpose behind the imposition of high standards for Singaporean politicians.

What should be avoided at all costs is a perception that the Bill is an attempt on the part of one political party trying to constrain the public's right to vote for a candidate of their choice.

Also, both sides of the House will need to come to a consensus on how we should deal with politicians who may be convicted for acts of civil obedience or conscience, which are markedly different from criminal behaviour.

Once we have struck a consensus on how to treat criminal convictions of sitting MPs in this House, then, I would imagine that the disqualification criteria for candidates and members of other high constitutional offices may have to be reviewed again.

Mr Speaker, to agree on this Bill is an easy matter. To my mind, it is a simple updating exercise. This Bill does not propose to deal directly with two other important matters: the disqualification criteria of sitting MPs and the parity of standards between sitting MPs and professionals, civil servants and uniformed officers.

This "second key", in my respectful view, appears to be weaker for MPs. These are important matters but we can debate on these in good time, given that any Constitution amendment here should require strong bipartisan support. I support the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, the crux of this Bill is to change one of the threshold criteria for the disqualification of MPs, the elected President and Members of the CPA and PCMR.

In essence, the current law of disqualifying a person once he has received a Court fine of at least $2,000 is being amended. The threshold for a disqualifying Court fine is proposed to be raised to $10,000. Sir, our view is that the increase to $10,000 moves us in the right direction. The Workers' Party supports this Bill.

The focus of my speech today will be on the impact of this change on qualifying for Parliamentary office – what Minister Chan Chun Sing earlier referred to as the first part of this Bill.

In its media release on 4 April 2022, the Elections Department highlighted that the disqualification fine amounts had not been revised since Singapore's Independence some 57 years ago.

Sir, given the forces of inflation and also how fines have been raised by Parliament over the decades, it is undeniable that a fine of $2,000 in 1965 would be a much more significant punishment compared to a $2,000 fine today. Based on a rough calculation of the impact of inflation on prices from 1965 to the present, the figure of $10,000 is within reason.

Sir, I should emphasise that, going by this logic, the change brought about by this Bill does not represent a lowering of standards for eligibility for Parliament. Instead, it is an attempt to retain the same standards of eligibility that existed when the law was originally enacted.

Sir, the task of setting disqualifications for Parliamentary office raises questions of national significance. After all, we are dealing with the issue of which Singapore Citizens should be considered unfit for elected public office. This affects the fundamental right of citizens to participate in public life and also the right to continue in office after being duly elected by the people.

Some may wonder why we need to be so concerned since the disqualification based on a Court sentence lasts for only five years, after which, the person can stand for election again. While five years is no doubt just one election cycle, five years in a person's life is not a short time. Nor should we discount how society could lose from the contributions of an otherwise capable citizen banished to the political wilderness, even if temporarily.

Thus, debates concerning the right of individuals to stand for election or to continue in service merit serious consideration.

On the one hand, the current approach of setting the cut-off based on the quantum of punishment via the Courts is imperfect. If one is targeting fitness for office, the current method makes no distinction about the types of offence involved. A fine and/or a short imprisonment term may be imposed by the Courts for many offences with varied moral culpability, ranging from traffic offences to theft. Fines may also be imposed for infractions under some laws which many do not consider criminal in nature.

Take, for instance, the recent Court case involving a member of an Opposition party. Shortly before the General Election in 2020, he was fined $5,000 for contempt of Court. This placed him over the $2,000 disqualification threshold for standing for election. When he applied to the High Court for clarification on his status, the judge ruled that so long as the Court fine was of the required amount, it did not matter what the underlying charge was. The Court held that matters considered quasi-criminal, such as the contempt of Court, would suffice for disqualification.

On the other hand, imperfect though it is, the advantage of having a cut-off simply based on the punishment quantum is that it is easy to apply and it is clear to everyone. With the raising of the disqualification fine to $10,000 applied to today's circumstances, there will be a better calibration to target offences of greater seriousness.

Sir, while today's amendment is a step in the right direction, I understand and I stand corrected that, in notable jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, candidates at the national election are, generally, not disqualified if they are merely fined in Court, whatever the amount. Instead, disqualification kicks in only when one is sentenced to imprisonment of a certain duration.

Sir, given the multitude of regulatory laws in today's modern society, there is always a risk that persons engaged in business or certain industries or professions may be fined for some non-compliance.

We may wish to consider in future how relevant the issue of fines is to our disqualification criteria for Parliament and, should we embark on such a further review in the future, careful consideration should be paid to how to balance upholding respect for Parliament as a national institution with having a set of eligibility criteria that are relevant to modern Singapore.

To summarise then, the Workers' Party supports the Bill to raise the threshold fines for disqualification from Parliament to $10,000. I have also raised the suggestion of a possible future review on the issue of disqualifications based on fines to further examine if it is appropriate to either remove fines altogether or to look at further refinements.

Mr Speaker, we want elections to be contested and to be contested, by competent people who are committed and passionate to serve. As an educated electorate, I believe Singaporeans are discerning and will continue to make rational decisions about who should represent them in this august Chamber.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the various Articles of the Constitution.

Article 45 sets out the criteria for the disqualification of MPs. Article 45(e) states that a person shall not be qualified to be an MPs if he has been convicted of an offence by a Court of law and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon.

The fine quantum of $2,000 has not been revised since Independence and I agree that it is appropriate to adjust the fine quantum, to ensure that the fine quantum is commensurate with the reasons why a person ought to be disqualified to be an MP.

Take, for example, the sentencing guidelines for traffic offences. They have been enhanced after Parliament amended the Road Traffic Act in 2019. In recent Court cases for careless driving, the Courts came up with a sentencing framework whereby a person charged for careless driving resulting in grievous hurt will face a fine of $2,500 even when his culpability is low.

This means that if a person were to make an error of judgement when driving and his careless driving results in an accident, whereby a victim suffered a serious injury, then that person would be disqualified to be an MP as the fine for careless driving would exceed the sum of $2,000. And this is the current fine quantum for disqualification under Article 45(e) of the Constitution.

Thus, if the Constitution is not amended, any aspiring person who wishes to stand as a candidate to be an MP would not be qualified, and any sitting MP would be disqualified if they have been convicted of a similar kind of traffic offence.

Sir, last year, I advised a client who was charged for careless driving. He had turned left and he hit a motorcycle because he missed a blind spot. The motorcycle rider suffered a fractured arm and my client was fined a total of $4,000. I was thinking to myself: this could happen to anyone of us in the House; anyone of us who was driving and had missed a blind spot would be charged for careless driving and fined more than $2,000 and it would result in us being disqualified.

So, it begs the question as to whether a momentary lapse of judgement whilst driving is the kind of reason that a person ought to be disqualified to serve as an MP. And I would humbly submit that we ought to set a bar in the Constitution that disqualifies a person from being an MP if that person is convicted of an offence that relates to dishonesty, fraud, corruption, bribery or, as Mr Murali Pillai has suggested, sexual misconduct, but not for careless driving.

For other offences that are technical in nature or what we call statutory offences, we ought to review whether such offences ought to result in disqualification to be an MP as well. Take another example – a company director who had gotten a fellow investor who becomes a shareholder and he cannot get his fellow shareholder to hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM). Thus, he fails to file an Annual Return and is convicted in Court. Should the fine imposed by the Court exceed $2,000? Should that Director also be disqualified for such a technical offence, that he had made a mistake in choosing a fellow investor or a shareholder wrongly?

Sir, section 45 of the Charities Act sets out the criteria where a person is disqualified to serve as a director in a charity if the person is convicted of dishonesty, including fraud, corruption, bribery and deception, or offences involving terrorism, terrorism financing or money laundering.

Section 154 of the Companies Act sets out the criteria where a person is disqualified to serve as a director of a company if the person is convicted of any offence, whether in Singapore or elsewhere, involving again, fraud or dishonesty punishable with an imprisonment of three months or more.

These disqualification criteria suggest that the state frowns upon persons who have behaved dishonestly and are disqualified from holding positions where they act as fiduciary to either a charity or a company.

So, I would urge the Government to do likewise – signal the type of dishonest conduct that we wish to guard against and not just by adjusting the quantum of the fine.

Sir, I also wish to ask the Minister to clarify, for persons who are convicted of offences overseas, may I ask the Minister whether the same criteria of referring to the quantum of fine will apply? For example, it was previously reported that in some Scandinavian countries, the fine for traffic offences is pegged to the person's earnings. Thus, if you are a high earner in Singapore and, for some reason, you are caught speeding in a Scandinavian country, the fine for speeding may far exceed the sum of $10,000, which is the proposed new criteria for disqualification. In fact, that fine in that Scandinavian country is supposed to be pegged to your salary. So, is that the intended objective of the amendment to the Constitution?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had previously said that it will be more difficult to attract quality candidates into politics as potential candidates will have to face negative comments on social media. They have to put up with a greater financial sacrifice from switching careers and also face less certainty of winning in elections.

If we do not find the right people to serve in Parliament, Singapore, as a country, will suffer, because of weaker leadership at the national level.

Thus, we should amend the Constitution to ensure that the type of people who are disqualified from becoming MPs are the ones that we want to exclude and not citizens who have made minor or technical mistakes in their lives.

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me, first, thank Members who spoke on this Bill and for their support of the Bill.

Let me first cover the technical clarifications. Then, I will conclude with the spirit behind what we are doing.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether the updated fine quantum criterion would apply for persons convicted of offences overseas. The answer is yes. An individual who has been fined by a foreign court the equivalent of at least S$10,000 will be disqualified. However, it must be for an offence which would be punishable by a Court in Singapore if it had been committed locally. This is an existing provision in our Constitution and is based on the principle that committing an offence abroad should have the same consequence on the eligibility to stand for elections.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim noted that this Bill serves, in the main, to update the constitutional disqualification criteria. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if fines should be considered at all, while Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Murali Pillai raised the possibility of further tightening the disqualification criteria in the future, so that we continue to hold our parliamentarians to the highest standards. Specifically, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Murali Pillai suggested identifying the offences that would disqualify an individual as an MP to signal the behaviour or conduct that we want to guard against.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the scope of this Bill is intentionally narrow and focused on updating the disqualification criteria. This is in keeping with the democratic ideal that the rights of individuals to participate in the political process and to stand for public office should be unfettered as far as possible, as pointed out by Mr Murali Pillai. While we need to ensure fitness of individuals to be parliamentarians, the bar cannot be so high that we undermine our parliamentary system which is founded on representative democracy. Keeping the disqualification criteria to a reasonable threshold also allows voters broad discretion to choose whom they wish to represent them.

Indeed, many jurisdictions disqualify elected Members if they have been sentenced to an imprisonment term of one or two years and not by the type of offences. This is because there are inherent challenges in listing the specific offences and then having to frequently amend a basic document like the Constitution, so that the offence list is updated. There is also the issue whether we automatically disqualify every individual convicted of a listed offence even though the actual sentence, whether fine and/or jail sentence, may be quite light. An automatic disqualification based solely on conviction without taking into account the actual sentence is not compatible with the principle of ensuring fitness for the office according to actual conduct.

Mr Murali Pillai noted that there will be candidates or MPs who are convicted of a heinous offence or one involving dishonesty or moral turpitude but received sentences that do not cross the constitutional disqualification threshold and, therefore, will not be disqualified. These disqualification criteria set out the thresholds for disqualification as MPs, based on the severity of the punishment for offences committed.

As the basic document, the Constitution has to establish the suitable balance for Singapore between ensuring wide representation of all sectors of our community in Parliament and ensuring the representatives' fitness for office. The constitutional ineligibility, which is covered by the Bill, simply sets the minimum threshold for individuals to seek office in Parliament, so as to ensure basic fitness for office. No different from the need for minimum age to ensure maturity and personal competence by requiring a certain level of language command in Article 44, the Bill addresses the parliamentarian's minimum moral aptitude. Beyond the disqualification criteria, our political parties must continue to ensure that the candidates they field and MPs from their parties are persons with integrity and who adhere to the highest standards of conduct. Ultimately, our voters will decide, at the ballot box, the fitness of the person seeking to represent them in Parliament.

Nevertheless, I would like to thank all Members for the suggestions. We will keep them in mind in any future reviews.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by reiterating the intent behind this Bill. The Bill aims to update the disqualification criteria for membership of Parliament and memberships of CPA and PCMR so that they continue to be relevant in ensuring that Members are persons with integrity and who adhere to high standards of conduct. This is to safeguard and protect the standing and dignity of Parliament, as well as the offices of CPA and PCMR.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may conclude with an exposition on the spirit behind this.

As we have heard from Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Sylvia Lim, if we set the bar too high, then we may, inadvertently, rule out many people who might want to participate in the representative democratic process that we have. If we set the bar too low, as Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, then it seems incongruent with what we expect of our public officers and our uniformed officers. So, in amending the Constitution today, we are adhering to the spirit behind what was set out from Independence and updating the criteria, but the spirit remains the same: to find the balancing point between setting the bar too high that may exclude too many and setting the bar too low that will not be congruent with what we expect of parliamentarians. But, having said that, whatever we agree today is but one of the levers that will apply to those who wish to be a Member of this Chamber.

Besides the rules that we have, there are three other important keys, if I may use the words of Mr Murali Pillai, and those three other keys are as follows. First, the standard that the respective political parties hold themselves accountable to. Second, the standards that each and every one of us hold ourselves to. And third, and most importantly, the standards which our public hold us to.

In order for our democracy to function properly, we need all four keys. We need the first key, the set of rules that balance the need for democratic participation with the standards that we expect from those aspiring for public office but, very critically, the other three keys – what political parties expect of the standards from their respective MPs or candidates; how our candidates and MPs hold ourselves accountable to the standards that we expect of ourselves as representatives of our people and our country; and, finally, the strongest safeguard against any degradation of the standards of this House must be our electorate who, ultimately, elect our people into this House.

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to give your fullest support to the Bill.

Any other clarifications? The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

[(proc text) After two minutes – (proc text)]

Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.

Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, may I remind Members that they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the armrests start to blink.

[(proc text) Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." (proc text)]

Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 87 "Ayes"; 0 "Noes"; 0 "Abstentions". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chan Chun Sing]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)]

Third Reading

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

[(proc text) After one minute – (proc text)]

Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

[(proc text) Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time." (proc text)]

Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. Again, I remind Members to depress their vote button firmly in order to register their vote in the system. Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? No?

I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are now 88 "Ayes"; 0 "Noes"; 0 "Abstentions". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Minister for Social and Family Development.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

First and foremost, our starting point is that every child deserves to grow up in a loving family and a caring community. We want our children to thrive under the care of trusted adults.

This is part of our Social Compact in Singapore, where families form the bedrock of our society. They are our first line of support. The Government will preserve strong families because they are our foundation that nurtures and builds resilient individuals, together with the support of a caring community.

However, we note that, in some instances, a child's birth parents may be either unable or unwilling to care for him or her. This is when the Government must facilitate alternative and needed care arrangements.

Where reunification with their birth parents is unlikely, adoption into a strong and stable family is an important enabler – providing the children with a better chance of having a good start in life and achieving better outcomes.

Today, adoption in Singapore is governed by the Adoption of Children Act 1939 (ACA). In the past decade, the number of adoption applications has averaged about 400 annually, with a dip in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic and cross-border restrictions. Over 90% of applications were granted by the Courts.

Adoption agencies have also been playing an increasingly bigger role in the adoption sector. Domestically, there are about 10 to 15 commercial adoption agencies – I will call them CAAs. They provide various services for prospective adopters. For example, arranging pre-adoption assessments and matching them with children identified for adoption.

There are also four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) which provide similar services. MSF appoints these SSAs to conduct pre-adoption briefings and assessments. Currently, all adoption agencies are not directly regulated, although they must comply with Singapore laws, including laws against child trafficking. ACA was last substantively amended in 1985. Since then, the adoption landscape has evolved significantly and seen several key developments.

First, adoption applications have become increasingly complex. MSF is seeing more adoption applications involving children with high needs and prospective adopters with concerning issues. Second, some vulnerable children in state care, who would benefit from adoption, face obstacles in the adoption process, primarily due to objections from their birth parents. Third, the CAAs have become more prominent in the adoption sector. With a limited number of local children available for adoption, prospective adopters have sought their services to source for foreign children.

Over time, MSF has received feedback about such CAAs engaging in undesirable practices that are financially-motivated, with little to no regard for the interests of the child, prospective adopters and birth parents.

While MSF has administratively addressed such undesirable practices, legislative levers are needed for greater deterrence because this cannot be tolerated in our society. Therefore, this Bill will repeal and re-enact ACA, with enhanced provisions to govern the adoption sector, practices and processes in Singapore, and to better safeguard the child's welfare.

In formulating the Bill, MSF had consulted extensively. This included key stakeholders, like our adopted children, adoptive parents, adoption agencies, agencies supporting women with unplanned pregnancies, religious leaders, lawyers and the Courts.

While the groups were diverse, I was heartened to hear they all shared a common view and, that is, that the child's welfare should be at the heart of our considerations.

Overall, we had received feedback and suggestions from over 200 respondents, many of which were taken on board.

We also carefully studied international developments and best practices on adoption, learning what would be useful and relevant for our social and cultural context. This Bill is the culmination of their suggestions and aspirations.

Before I go into the key provisions, allow me to clarify upfront the three main groups of people mentioned in the Bill.

First, the Guardian-in-Adoption (GIA). This is a public officer responsible for safeguarding the welfare of children identified for adoption and granted powers through the Bill to carry out various statutory functions.

Second, adoption agencies. These refer to persons in the business of arranging for interested prospective adopters to adopt. Today, there are CAAs and some SSAs that provide such services.

Third, authorised adoption agencies. MSF intends to authorise some fostering agencies and SSAs that handle adoption-related work to have specified statutory functions and powers, such as to perform Adoption Suitability Assessments.

Allow me to elaborate on the key provisions of the Bill, which are grouped into three key thrusts: first, finding a good home for every child; second, balancing the interests of birth parents and the child; and third, putting in place a sound regulatory system for the adoption process.

First, finding a good home for every child. The first thrust is finding a good home for every child identified for adoption. As I said earlier, the key focus of adoption is the child's welfare, rather than about supporting parenthood. This means ensuring they are adopted by families who can provide good home environments for them.

In this regard, we will provide greater clarity on and tighten the eligibility criteria for adoption.

First, we will prioritise applicants with a stronger nexus to Singapore. This is given the small number of children identified for adoption and the challenges in accurately assessing prospective adopters based overseas.

Today, the Act requires the applicant to be resident in Singapore. Clause 4 specifies that the applicant for adoption under Singapore jurisdiction must be habitually resident in Singapore. In determining this, the Court will consider how long the applicants have been living in the country, where they work and the base of their social and economic ties. For joint applications, at least one applicant must be a Singapore Citizen (SC) or both applicants must be Permanent Residents (PRs), while a sole applicant should be an SC or a PR.

The Bill allows the Court to recognise exceptional cases where adoption would be in the child's welfare, for example, if a Singaporean couple living overseas wishes to adopt their orphaned niece living in Singapore.

Second, we will provide more guidance on who can adopt jointly, given the differing marriage laws across jurisdictions. The Bill specifies that applicants married under Singapore law can do so. For couples who married overseas, only those who would be regarded as lawfully married, if their marriage had taken place in Singapore, can adopt jointly. This means that only a man and a woman, married to each other, can apply together. This is because Singapore's marriage law only allows a man and a woman to marry each other.

Third, clause 5 establishes the default position that applicants convicted of serious crimes cannot adopt. This improves on the current arrangement, which relies on the Court-appointed GIA to object on a case-by-case basis. The list of serious crimes will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation and will include offences, such as sexual abuse, violence and drug consumption offences. Exceptions may be made in special circumstances, for example, if an applicant had committed the offence when he or she was a teenager and has since remained crime-free and assessed to have a low risk of re-offending, the GIA may provide a favourable assessment and the Court may decide to grant the adoption order.

But, let me emphasise that, ultimately, it remains for the Court to be satisfied that there is no risk of harm to the child, before granting an adoption order. This is not a trivial matter and would be considered carefully and dutifully, both by the GIA and the Court.

Lastly, in the course of addressing queries from prospective adopters, MSF explains to them the criteria used.

Clause 7 provides factors that the Court, GIA and authorised adoption agencies must consider when assessing suitability. This includes factors that we will prescribe in subsidiary legislation, for example, the strength of applicants' marriage, parenting capacity and existence of support networks.

Additionally, clause 7 also requires Court judgments on adoption to be considered in assessing suitability of prospective adopters. In particular, the High Court has, in the past, held that relevant public policies can be taken into account in adoption applications.

In this regard, I would like to reiterate the Government's statements in Parliament in January and October 2019 that, as a matter of public policy, we do not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. To be clear, we do not support the use of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) or surrogacy to conceive and then adopt a child.

Second, our public policy encourages parenthood within marriage. In the case of a man and a woman married in accordance with Singapore's marriage law, they may be medically unable to conceive children and surrogacy is their only option. If so, it would be possible for them to adopt their child who is conceived through surrogacy, if the arrangement is carried out in a jurisdiction where surrogacy is not illegal or unlawful.

The Government has also stated that it is a matter of public policy that we do not support the formation of same-sex family units, which the High Court had affirmed in December 2018 in UKM v Attorney-General. We reiterated in January 2019 that we do not support the formation of same-sex families through processes, such as adoption. These public policies will be taken into consideration when determining suitability to adopt.

We will also introduce more safeguards into the adoption process.

Clause 11 lists three prerequisites before prospective adopters can apply to Court.

First, they must attend a Pre-adoption Briefing. This enables them to better understand the adoption process, eligibility criteria and unique needs of an adopted child.

Second, they must attend a Disclosure Briefing. This equips prospective adopters with the knowledge and skills to disclose the child's adoptive status at a suitable time, with the child's welfare in mind.

MSF strongly encourages such disclosure. During one of our engagement sessions, I, myself, heard the candid views of adopted children who shared with me about their adoption journey and the importance of disclosure to them. They were very brave.

Ten-year-old Zephaniah Lim was one of them, who emailed us after the session. I would like to share with the House an excerpt. He said, and I quote, that, "Forever Daddies and Mummies must tell their children about their Tummy Mummies and that they came out from their stomachs. Because the children need to know where they came from." Zephaniah's moving words represent the voice of many adopted children. And, as a House, we ought to support their voices.

Nevertheless, we recognise that some birth and adoptive parents may have concerns regarding disclosure. I fully understand this. We are, therefore, taking an incremental approach towards disclosure. As a first step, we will mandate disclosure briefings, but not the disclosure itself.

MSF will study practices overseas and consult key stakeholders on further steps that we could take towards greater disclosure, for example, the setting up of an adoption register.

Third, they must undergo an Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA). Today, only applicants adopting a foreign unrelated child or a child in state care need to undergo a pre-adoption assessment. We have not required this in other cases. This is because the child is likely related to the applicants and already living with them before their adoption decision.

Nonetheless, we have received feedback that ASA would be useful to prepare and provide early support to all applicants. Thus, we will now require all applicants to obtain a favourable ASA before they can adopt.

Where prospective adopters are related to the child, such as step-parents, and do not present any concerns, they may undergo a simplified ASA process. All applicants must also reside in Singapore for at least a year. This ensures that they are settled here and their family and support systems are stable. Applicants may appeal to GIA against an authorised adoption agency's decision on ASA, to ensure that their views are heard.

Next, for the sake of the child's welfare, we encourage timely applications for adoption. Clause 33 allows the Court to strike out applications that are made a long time after a child has started living with the applicants. This is to deter prospective adopters from delaying their application filing. This provision will not apply in specified circumstances where the child is already likely to be living with the prospective adopters. For example, if the child is a biological, or related child.

I will now describe the new powers to obtain information for required assessments and to grant Court orders to ensure the child's welfare and safety.

We propose six key levers.

First, to ensure assessors have all salient information necessary to make an accurate assessment. Clauses 15, 19 and 29 empower GIA and authorised adoption agencies to vary or revoke an ASA in specified circumstances or direct prospective adopters and any relevant person of a child to undergo assessments or to provide pertinent information.

In principle, this preserves the integrity of ASA and avoids some situations that MSF encounters today, for instance, prospective adopters failing or refusing to provide information on their financial stability or mental health, and even providing false information.

The Bill also states consequences for non-compliance. For example, GIA can recommend that an adoption order should not be made, if pertinent information is not provided.

Second, under clause 59, it will be an offence to provide false or misleading information to GIA or an authorised adoption agency during the adoption process. This is also to ensure the accuracy of assessments and that an adoption order is not made or refused due to false information.

Third, as the adoption process takes time, clauses 22 and 30 put the onus on prospective adopters to notify GIA and authorised adoption agencies of any material changes in their circumstances, for example, applicants who decide to separate midway through the proceedings.

The applicants' duty to notify will commence when they apply for an ASA and will last until the Court decides on their application. Failure to comply can result in the Court drawing an adverse inference against the applicant.

Fourth, under clause 32, the Court will be able to empower applicants, who are in the midst of adoption proceedings, to make non-routine decisions for the child's care, where needed. These are decisions that a person can be expected to make ordinarily in caring for a child, such as allowing a wisdom tooth extraction or minor surgery after a fall. If organisations require a Court order for applicants to decide on a non-routine decision, applicants may then choose to rely on this provision.

Fifth, clause 35 empowers the Court to require that applicants, a child's relevant persons and/or the child attend support services, such as mediation or counselling. Such orders may be made even after adoption proceedings have concluded.

Sixth, in the event of an unsuccessful adoption application, clause 43 allows the Court to order any person who has the child to transfer the child to a suitable person recommended by GIA, where this is required to ensure the child's safety. Non-compliance will be an offence punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment.

I have spoken at length about the various provisions and measures we have introduced to ensure that we can find a good home for every child, because we have the child's welfare at heart. This sums up our first thrust.

Next, I will talk about our second key thrust. This is to strike a balance between the interest of the birth parents and the child.

First of all, let me state that MSF acknowledges and upholds the sanctity of parents' rights over their child. Adoption is not a decision to be taken lightly. Hence, clause 25 states that an adoption order cannot be made unless all key parties who may be affected by it are notified first. Such key parties include a child's birth parents and someone who has actual custody of the child. They are referred to as a "relevant person" in the Bill.

The consent of a child's relevant person should be obtained in the ordinary order of things. We will retain the existing requirement that an adoption order cannot be made, unless every relevant person of a child has consented to the child's adoption. We have made clear how to obtain informed consent, such as having two witnesses when signed consent is obtained.

However, in some cases, a child's birth parents may be missing or may unreasonably object to the adoption, even though the refusal harms the child's welfare. In such instances, the Bill will allow the Court to proceed with the adoption process, even without the birth parents' consent.

While the current ACA lists some grounds for dispensation of consent, stakeholders have shared that these are insufficient.

Over the last few years, there have been about 1,000 children in state care at any point in time. Of this group, adoption would have been the best permanency option for about one in 20 children in state care, or about 50 children. Even then, only 10 applications to adopt them were made each year, on average. Of this already small number, about 40%, or four applications annually, were contested by the child's relevant person, typically a birth parent.

Such contestation, which can be protracted and costly, deters prospective adopters from applying to adopt them. Most importantly, the child's welfare is adversely impacted because he or she can neither be safely reunified with his or her birth parents or kin, nor be placed in a new, permanent family.

To address this, clauses 36 to 41 provide guidance on a wider range of circumstances where dispensation of consent would be in the child's welfare. In calibrating these grounds, MSF had studied overseas jurisdictions and past cases we have managed and consulted widely.

This amendment will help children like Esther, not her real name. Esther's birth mother alleged that she was abused by Esther's birth father and that he had placed Esther in physical danger while under the influence of drugs. As Esther's birth parents were unable to provide a safe and stable home, she was placed in foster care shortly after she was born. Her birth father was also, subsequently, jailed for drug-related offences.

Despite extensive efforts by MSF's Child Protective Service to work with her birth parents to reunify Esther with them, concerns remained. About two years after being placed in foster care, MSF arranged for Esther to spend two days weekly with her birth mother. However, Esther experienced nightmares and refused to eat or go to school.

Esther's birth mother was also unable to care for her independently and could not cope well when stressed. This raised concerns over her ability to provide safe care. Upon his release from prison, Esther's birth father also could not commit to meeting her to nurture a healthy parent-child relationship. As a result, this left Esther with poor emotional attachments to her birth parents.

Despite this, Esther's birth father objected to her adoption, even though he lacked the commitment to care for her, as a father ought to have.

Our proposed amendments to clarify the grounds under which the Court can dispense with consent to adoption are intended to help children like Esther move out of the state care system earlier, be adopted and have the chance to grow up in a safe, loving and stable family.

I would like to emphasise that our intent is not to make it easier to take children away from their parents. We will not consider adoption for children in state care if they can be safely reunified with their birth family. It is only when we have exhausted efforts to reunify the child and determined that adoption is the best alternative that we will seek the consent of the birth parents for the child's adoption.

Should the birth parents refuse and MSF's Child Protective Service conclude that any further delay would harm the child's welfare, we will source for suitable applicants to adopt the child. Such applicants may then file an application in Court, requesting the Court to consider dispensing with the birth parents' consent.

Like today, birth parents can choose to contest an adoption application and, if there is such contestation, the Court will make the final decision.

Finally, the third thrust is to establish a sound regulatory system for the adoption process.

While there is currently, no specific regulatory framework that governs adoption, all parties in the adoption sector must comply with Singapore laws. These include laws against child trafficking. Many stakeholders in the adoption sector do try their best to act responsibly, with the child's welfare in mind.

Nevertheless, MSF has received feedback that some commercial adoption agencies engage in undesirable practices. These include advertising children for adoption in a way that other businesses advertise goods for sale, fraudulently obtaining a birth parent's consent to the child's adoption and not being transparent about their fees.

While MSF has worked with SSAs to educate prospective adopters on dubious practices and also issued stern warnings to entities which engage in undesirable practices, stronger action is needed. MSF, therefore, intends to introduce offences and regulatory measures, as follows.

First, we will restrict the sharing of identifiable information of children identified for adoption. Clause 48 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children who were, or are, the subject of adoption proceedings, including after the protected person turns 21 years old.

Clause 51 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children when advertising, promoting or providing adoption services, to prevent children from being commodified. In addition to financial penalties, the Court can order offenders to remove the publication or broadcast.

Second, we will impose new requirements relating to adoption-related payments. Today, applicants must apply to the Court for sanctioning of payments they have received in consideration of an adoption and payments that they have made to birth parents. Our intent is that payments exchanged in the adoption process should be made to benefit and promote a child's welfare and not to exploit or entice a relevant person into giving up his or her child, or for improper financial gain.

Clause 53 extends the sanctioning requirement to payments made by applicants to people beyond birth parents. If payments made or received by the applicants are not declared to the Court and sanctioned, they cannot be enforced.

Under clause 54, every adoption agency must publish a list of every payment to be made to, or through the agency for adoption-related matters. This will increase transparency and allow prospective adopters to make better-informed decisions. It will be an offence if an adoption agency fails to do so without reasonable excuse.

We will also regulate categories of payments under clause 55 to guard against improper financial gains. Making or receiving any adoption-related payment outside of the permitted categories will be an offence. Examples of permitted payments include legal fees and payments to defray the costs of caring for a child.

Third, we will penalise the use of fraud, duress, undue influence or other improper means to obtain consent to adoption. MSF has encountered applications where the birth parent alleged that he or she was tricked into signing the consent document. Some birth mothers interviewed by MSF have shared that they were forced by adoption agencies into signing the consent document without having sufficient time to consider the implications. Such practices are wrong and harmful. Under clause 56, such practices will amount to obtaining consent improperly and will be an offence.

Fourth, clause 57 will regulate the circumstances where children can be placed with prospective adopters. Generally, this will only be allowed if the prospective adopter has already obtained an ASA. If the child is a foreigner, the prospective adopter must also have in-principle approval for a Dependant's Pass for the child. Prospective adopters will be guilty of an offence if they fail to comply. Adoption agencies, any relevant person of the child and people who assist them will also be guilty of an offence if they place a child with such prospective adopters.

However, there are some children who live with prospective adopters before they commence the adoption process, such as children whose foster parents intend to adopt them or children living with their relatives who are seeking to adopt them.

The Bill, thus, specifies that the offence will not apply in such cases for practical reasons as removing the child temporarily from the prospective adopters during the adoption application process would not be in the child's welfare. Nonetheless, if ASA turns out to be unfavourable due to care or protection concerns, MSF will step in to arrange for alternative care arrangements.

Lastly, the Bill makes clear that protecting children and strengthening the adoption sector are a shared responsibility.

Under clause 60, it will be an offence for key parties involved in adoption proceedings or in the adoption sector to fail to report suspected offences under the Bill to GIA or an officer authorised by GIA.

Under clause 72, individuals who report, whether voluntarily or under a legal obligation, will be protected from legal liability for reporting. Their identity will also be protected during Court proceedings.

In addition, under clause 73, key parties performing statutory functions, such as GIA and staff in authorised adoption agencies, will be protected from personal liability if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care.

As the majority of applications in Singapore involve inter-country adoptions, the proposed offences will have extraterritorial effect under clause 50. This means that if an offence is committed by a person outside Singapore, the person may be dealt with as if the offence was committed within Singapore.

The penalties for first-time offenders of an offence in the Bill range from a fine of up to $5,000 or $10,000, and/or imprisonment for a term up to 12 months or three years. The penalties are higher for repeat offenders and offences targeted at commercial adoption agencies.

To enforce these new offences, clauses 61 to 63 provide GIA and authorised officers with powers of enforcement while clauses 64 and 65 clarify that it would be an offence to obstruct enforcement or provide false or misleading information to officers performing enforcement functions, such as an officer authorised by GIA.

To conclude, it is timely to bring this Bill before the House as we have designated 2022 to be the Year of Celebrating SG Families.

At the start of my speech, I shared about how families are the bedrock of our society. This Bill reaffirms the enduring role that families play in our society and towards the nurturing of resilient individuals. It reminds us how providing every child with a strong, safe and stable family environment also gives them a good start in life, as well as enables them to flourish and to fulfil their potential.

While most children will be blessed to grow up happy and safe in the family they were born into, this Bill will enable adopted children to experience the comfort, care and love of a family, described in the words of 10-year-old Zephaniah, as their "forever" Mummies, "forever" Daddies and "forever" brothers and sisters. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Speaker, this Bill addresses two important matters relating to the policy on adoption: first, regulating the behaviour of individuals; and second, regulating the structure of institutions. We need both to work seamlessly together in what is, essentially, a very private and emotional affair – the birth of a family.

Sir, in the adoption of a child, the overriding consideration must be, as what the Minister has described, the centrality of the child. Our dream is for every adopted child to have a good home and a family to take care of and to love them.

I shall now make a few points about the Bill.

First, one proposed change is to prioritise applicants with stronger ties to Singapore. In this case, I would like to ask if the threshold of "strong ties" is sufficiently high.

My question lies in the case of joint applications, which are allowed as long as both applicants are Permanent Residents (PRs). If the test is that of ties to one's country, should not one applicant, minimally, be a Singapore Citizen? Yes, PRs do have some degree of permanence, but they do move on when circumstances change. For example, there are those who renounce it after the first term, or there could be others who have had their PRs, subsequently, not renewed or approved.

Second, the change of default to disqualifying applicants who have committed serious offences, rather than allowing all applications and then reviewing on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with this as a matter of efficiency and also as a signal of how high we set the bar for qualifications. At the same time, even as we have safeguards to disqualify applicants with certain prescribed offences, we do allow exceptions if the Court is satisfied that these individuals have reformed. I am supportive of this.

I have a related point, however, on how this relates to the wider point on the protection of children. Our duty of care towards the child must be of the same level when it comes to birth parents. As I had indicated earlier in my speech at this year's Committee of Supply debate on MSF's budget, we must be as prompt and forceful in separating a child from birth parents or families where they are deemed to be "harmful" to the child.

Can the Minister say how this is provided for, if not in this Bill, then in other legislation relating to oversight and responses to child abuse and how parents who have committed serious offences are dealt with insofar as their ability to continue their parenting duties?

As much as I support this Bill for what it makes explicit, I would also like to point out an important provision of this current Bill and what it leaves implicit.

This Bill allows for single parents to adopt. I have, over the years, spoken quite a few times on the status of single parents and how our definition of "family" should expand to include these parents.

As a result of this provision for sole applicants, one question may arise for single parents who subsequently marry. Specifically, what happens to a child if the sole parent goes on to legally marry someone of the same gender overseas?

This issue is one which opens itself up to strong debate, but I would say, as far as the issue of adoption is concerned, the "overriding consideration" that I spoke of at the start of the speech still holds – which is, the centrality of the child and for every adopted child to have a good home and a family to love them.

If that condition holds, I would say there is much that the Bill can stay silent on and allow the circumstances of each specific case to be examined on its own merits, whether the single parent marries here or overseas and what the family unit, eventually, comprises.

I end with two specific points on regulating institutions.

First, how do we ensure or strengthen the assessment process for prospective adoptive parents? Can we ask for more testimonials and references to attest to the parents' character, as well as for specific performance indicators? In this case, I opine that more is better.

Second, in ensuring that assessments are current and also recognising that the entire process can take some time – potentially up to three years – the current proposed change is to put the onus on the applicants to notify authorities of any material change in their circumstances.

I agree with the placing of the onus, but I would like to add that we might want to impose annual affirmations and declarations on the part of applicants. This reduces the chances of declarations being overlooked and removes an excuse of forgetfulness for applicants. Again, in this case, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in some ways, the adoption of a child may seem to be open to more checks and scrutiny than the birth of one, because we see our duty to the adopted child as a joint and a public one.

To some extent, this is a duty which extends to all persons who are vulnerable. It is our collective duty to care for those who are unable to care for themselves and to put up rules, both for private conduct and in our institutions that work towards the flourishing of children within families. Sir, I support this Bill as a means of doing so.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on this excellent Bill. Speaking from personal experience, what I have learnt is that the adopted child blesses and enriches the family. My wish is that everyone listening to this speech today would seriously consider adoption, regardless of whether you have biological children.

I must also take this time to commend MSF for the good work they have done so far, not only in tabling this Bill, but the hard work over the years in working with stakeholders, parents and children in striving towards creating more awareness and support for adoption and facilitating the process of adoption.

There are also wonderful voluntary welfare organisation (VWO) partners who do silent, selfless and courageous work in this space – such as Safe Place, Touch Community Services, aLife and so many more ground-up and committed organisations.

The Bill aims to find a good home for every child identified for adoption and I stand strongly in support of this.

In some cases, a baby's adoption status is treated as a secret. However, adoption can be celebrated as an act of love. In that light, I support having disclosure briefings because it is best to disclose to the child as early as possible while helping the child understand that he or she is loved. When our daughter was still young, my wife and I would tell her that she came from her "Tummy Mommy's" tummy, but she was born in our hearts.

I understand that many would be concerned whether such disclosure would affect the child adversely. But I have thought about this and I believe we should tell the child about his or her adoption and do this as early as possible. Inevitably, the child will realise that he or she is adopted and will wonder why it was kept a secret. He or she will think that perhaps, there was something to be ashamed of.

A better approach, in my humble view, is for adoptive parents to explain adoption in a manner that is positive and affirming and showing the child that he or she belongs to a family and is loved equally. My wife and I have four children and all of them are treated and loved equally – no difference. They each have different personalities, but, when they are put together, they make quite a team.

I would also like to emphasise that it is in the best interests of children that adoption should be reserved for stable family units, ideally with a married husband and wife.

This Bill also stands to break cycles of abuse and neglect and this is very important. With record numbers of child abuse cases in 2020 and 2021, we need to work harder to protect our young because they are vulnerable and cannot speak up or defend themselves. With this Bill, more children will be able to be removed from abuse and neglect but, consequently, we will need more prospective parents willing to parent these children.

Mr Speaker, I also support the desire to deter undesirable behaviour in the adoption sector. The need to protect the best interests of the child means that certain behaviour that might compromise a child's welfare should be outlawed.

Alongside this, in order to protect children and also birth mothers, I also support Singapore's continued policy of, generally, not allowing commercial surrogacy.

I know surrogacy is a sensitive topic. But the unavoidable fact is that commercial surrogacy invites a very high risk of exploiting the woman who rents her womb. Surrogacy also invites so many middlemen and agents' fees. Many of these women who rent out their wombs come from developing countries and do so out of desperation. Surrogacy, in my view, should not be allowed in Singapore, or overseas for that matter, on account of the high possibility that women will be exploited.

We should also not commodify babies. Instead of commercial surrogacy, adoption is a very real alternative. We want to promote the ideal – which is not-for-profit adoption of Singaporean babies to Singaporean couples facilitated by non-commercial VWOs and MSF. And, by "couples", I mean a husband and wife.

I would also like to speak up in support of pregnant ladies who make the difficult and life-giving decision to keep their pregnancy and give their babies up for adoption. This is true selflessness. In this selfless manner, an unplanned pregnancy can create a wonderful family unit for the adoptive parents.

Finally, Mr Speaker, while this is an amazing Bill, I believe we can take it to a higher level. This Bill arises out of a greater aim to create a greater space for adoption within our society. My sincere aspiration is that we, as a society, see adoption as equally attractive as having biological children and both can come hand-in-hand as routes to starting a family. This positive framing of adoption can invite more prospective adoptive parents to come forward and put their names down and also for more unplanned pregnancies to lead to adoption instead of abortions.

One humble suggestion is for MSF to invite prospective adoptive parents to put their names down on a list, and also to have a list of pregnant ladies who want to give life to their babies, but cannot take care of them and would like to put them up for adoption. Then MSF can match the two lists together and facilitate more adoptions.

Having a child, whether adopted or biological, is not always easy. Like all families, there are ups and downs. So, I call on MSF to provide follow-up support, engagement and bonding activities for parents of adoptive children who desire support.

In conclusion, Sir, adoption is a unique journey. It will not always be smooth, but love solves all things.

I hope that there will be many more adoptions in Singapore in the decades to come. To prospective adoptive parents, do take the leap of faith and walk the journey. There is a wonderful team in MSF and I admire them and am thankful to them for all their hard work.

Mr Speaker, I believe we are all made for a unique purpose and I challenge each of our Members here and listeners at home to carefully consider whether your unique purpose is to adopt a child. I stand here in Parliament strongly advocating for the incredibly worthy cause of adoption. And for this reason, I support this timely Bill.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.50 pm until 5.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Mark Chay.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Adoption of Children Bill, which seeks to improve the systems and processes surrounding adoption in Singapore with a child welfare first approach.

I am pleased by the added rigour, scrutiny and support that will be soon embedded in the screening, selection and post-adoption processes, to ultimately, safeguard the well-being and the rights of children across Singapore.

Please allow me to share a few thoughts on the Bill. One, on the requirement for adopters to undergo suitability assessments; two, on breaking cycles of abuse and neglect; and three, on the suitability and criteria to adopt.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am encouraged by the move to conduct mandatory Adoption Suitability Assessments (ASA) on all prospective adoptive parents. This is to ensure a robust due diligence process which ascertains the fitness, readiness and suitability of adoption applicants.

I would like to ask if ASA is a two-way matching process that is fair and transparent to the potential parents as well. Will there be a comprehensive evaluation of the child's medical, mental and emotional status? In addition, will full disclosure of these details be shared with potential adoptive parents? In particular, the mental health and condition of adopted children are a concern and potential adopters should be made aware of the unique needs of the child they are adopting.

I move to my next point on breaking cycles of abuse and neglect.

I fully agree that access to a safe, stable environment is paramount to the health, happiness and development of the child.

The Bill states that the Court may dispense with a child's birth parents' consent to the adoption if the birth parents are unfit or unwilling to care for the child.

The Bill also prevents persons convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual violence and drug-related offences, from adopting and I would like to make two points on this matter.

First, I am happy to see that the Bill recognises the reformation process and the Court may consider exceptional cases for overcomers to be eligible for adoption.

Second, like overcomers, birth parents may be deemed unfit or unwilling to care for children at a point of time. But what if they can overcome and be deemed able and willing to parent later? In these instances, would there be an opportunity for the birth parents to reconcile with their birth children?

Lastly, on the criteria for suitability to adopt, my hope is for us to be a progressive nation and begin to have conversations on non-traditional family units.

While I do not disagree with the Government's position against deliberate single parenthood through surrogacy, adoption or same-sex parents, I am pragmatic in acknowledging the possibility that other non-traditional family structures may be able to meet the needs of an adopted child just as efficiently.

Although I respect the policies in place today, it is my hope that, in time, we dispense with evaluations of suitability based on sexual orientation or relationship status when the key qualifications and thresholds for suitability have been satisfied.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude by restating my firm support for this progressive Bill that modernises and legitimises Singapore's adoption process to provide for and protect children in need of forever families.

Ms Denise Phua.

Sir, I stand in support of the Adoption of Children Bill.

The last substantial amendment to the Act was in 1985, almost 40 years ago. The recommended increase from 12 sections to 75 sections in the proposed amendments, is a testament to the need to update this legislation. In addition, Singapore's birth and fertility rate has been declining. And adoption is one of the top options for couples who aspire to parenthood. Adoption is, thus a matter of interest to our society.

Adoption is clearly a serious matter. An adoption order granted by the Court is, in effect, a termination of the legal relationship between a child and his/her biological parents, and adoption means transferring all rights and responsibilities in caring for the child to the adoptive parents.

I wish to touch on matters relating to three key stakeholder groups: the children to be adopted, the adoptive parents and the adoption agencies.

First, the voice of the child. I fully agree with the Ministry's undergirding principle behind this suite of amendments in the Bill – that the top priority is to guard the welfare of the child. Many of the stakeholders involved in the adoption process are adults: prospective adopters, biological parents, adoption agency operators. But the person that is most impacted remains to be the child who is up for adoption. My question to the Minister is, therefore, how the voice of the child can be better sought and heard.

All the names I use hereon are not the real names of the persons involved, but all of them are people I know.

In the case of one of my young teenaged residents, I call him "Weng", the stress and uncertainty he endured during the adoption process was very hard for him. Weng's biological father, in a foreign country, had abused both him and his mother. His mother remarried a Singaporean who discovered the option of adoption only after quite a long period of appeals to agencies and through me, the Member of Parliament. Throughout the period of adoption, Weng, the young man, expressed great fear and anxiety of being rejected in this adoption application and being sent back to his home country. Weng really wanted to reside in Singapore with his mother and stepfather and wants to serve National Service when it is time. He wanted to become a Singaporean. I am so glad he is one now.

Another young resident, "QH", had to return to China to fend for himself at age 21, whilst his biological mother remained in Singapore with his biological half-brother and Singaporean stepfather. I supported part of his education, because fees were very high for him as a foreigner here and I often wished he could have become one of Singapore's sons.

One of my former students, "Boon", is a Singaporean child with special needs who was fostered as a toddler, because he was abandoned, until he was 21, through the Ministry's arrangement. Could Boon have been put up for adoption earlier? He was fostered for more than a decade. How long, therefore, would it take under the Bill, the new Act, if approved, to propose and facilitate the adoption of fostered children like Boon who were abandoned from young?

Sir, if the top priority of the Bill is for the welfare of the child, there must be ways found by which the process incorporates the voice of the child to be adopted.

Next, on the voice of the adoptive parents. In the process of preparing this speech, I spoke to a number of adoptive parents who have walked the journey. There are usually two main areas of concern: one, the long administrative process; and second, the unevenness of available information for them to make informed decisions.

The process of adoption, currently, involves many steps – from pre-adoption briefing, to home assessment study, identifying an agent, identifying a child for adoption, applying for a Dependant's Pass for a foreign child, getting the approval of the Family Court, sending the Adoption Order to ICA for a birth certificate, applying for Singapore Citizenship and, in the case of China, several post-adoption reporting requirements.

"Yen", a happy adoptive mother who adopted a baby from an ASEAN country, had to wait for a Dependant's Pass to be approved before she could spend time with the child, even after passing a very stringent Home Report assessment. That was step seven of, I think, 15 steps in MSF's portal, when I did a search. Mothers, like Yen, ask if the new process would further lengthen the anxiety of bona fide prospective adopters.

How do the steps in the new process vary, in terms of the number of steps, quantity, duration and complexity? How can the process be made more efficient whilst ensuring the welfare of the child remains a priority? Whilst essential steps to assess and prepare prospective adopters are made mandatory, which I fully support, are there other steps that can be consolidated or simplified and the flow of information across agencies be better shared?

The second concern of adoptive parents is that of the uneven level of awareness amongst them. In the words of one parent who spoke to me, "for us, the official road sort of 'ended' after MSF officially gave us the certification to become adoptive parents." Another one told me, "After the Home Study Report was done, we did not know where to go to look for the babies." They depended on the luck of the draw, to land the right lawyer to help them, the right social worker and the right adoption agency.

Several adoptive parents cited their search of agencies to be daunting and quoted some agencies to be "dubious" and "dodgy". Whilst the new clause 10 of the Bill provides for the Unique Entity Number (UEN), address of the place of business of every authorised adoption agency to be published, one wonders if that is sufficient. Surely, much more could be done to facilitate access to the needed information to help potential adoptive parents make better informed decisions and to cut short the process.

Lastly, on the voice of the adoption agencies. It is obvious from the feedback from adoptive parents I spoke to that not all adoption agencies are equally experienced, ethical and effective. How will MSF evaluate and identify appropriate agencies? How can the better ones, that Mr Deputy Speaker spoke about just now, be recognised and engaged?

For the sustainability of the good players in the market, whether for profit or not, financial viability is necessary. Therefore, can there be some way to help them? Can there be fee guidelines such as that issued by the MOH for clinics, so that there is an acceptable range of service fees? This will ensure that adoption agencies with good records get to remain in the business and build on their strength to support more families effectively.

Sir, the Adoption of Children Bill is overdue and is well worth our support. I seek the Ministry's considered responses to the concerns I have raised for the child, adoptive parents and adoptive agencies. Thank you so much for doing the good work.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. I note that the Bill contains certain provisions of the Adoption of Children Act 1939 while also codifying certain other current practices, and I would like to seek clarifications on just certain parts of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill requires that an adoption application must, henceforth, be made by an applicant who has a favourable adoption suitability assessment under clause 14, or in short, ASA. ASA is required to be issued by an authorised adoption agency pursuant to the requirements of the Bill. Clause 14 further provides that a valid ASA is one that is issued in the form specified by and contains all the necessary information required by GIA. Can the Minister clarify what additional information is required as prescribed under clause 14(3)A and B?

Currently, only limited categories of prospective adoptive parents are required to obtain a favourable Home Study Report (HSR) before they are allowed to adopt, for example, for overseas adoptive children. The HSR assessment is usually carried out by one of the four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) specifically authorised by MSF to provide certain adoption services. One such organisation, Touch Community Services, has provided a helpful explanation on the purpose of HSR on their website. They explained that HSR is to assess a person's suitability and readiness to adopt a child. The assessment is required before the adoptive parents start searching for a suitable child or before initiating legal adoption proceedings. The home study process involves interviews, screenings, home visits and applicants will be assessed on areas, such as their motivation to adopt, views on adoption, family, marital, medical and employment history, childcare arrangement, parenting styles and other relevant information, involving adoption and adoptive parenting.

I would like to ask the Minister whether for the categories of adoption applications currently requiring HSR, for example, adoption of foreign or local children not previously known personally to them, would HSR still be required, or whether ASA will replace HSR completely. And if ASA will not replace HSR, how would ASA add value to the current HSR regime beyond the ASA being a formal certification by the adoption agency that these applicants are suitable to be adoptive parents?

For any other group of applicants not currently subject to the HSR procedure, for example, a step-parent adopting a child of his or spouse from a previous marriage, may I know what is the expected rigour of the ASA assessment expected, for example, when compared to the current HSR process? How will GIA ensure that all ASAs comply with the requirements and standards expected under the Bill or any subsidiary legislation?

I am also curious why the Government did not consider it fit to allow the current four SSAs, which are issuing HSRs to issue ASAs, instead of getting the authorised adoption agencies to do so. Since the four SSAs are already issuing HSRs, it would seem reasonable and consistent for them to do the ASA assessment and issue the ASAs. I am also concerned about the additional cost to adoption which may arise from the requirement of ASA. The expenses for the adoption of overseas children are already quite significant and it is not easily affordable to some. Bearing in mind that each HSR already costs $2,000 and the HSR process is currently undertaken by commercial agencies, is the Minister able to indicate, for now, the estimated fees which the Government expects the adoption agencies to charge for ASA and would this be capped by the Government?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have earlier spoken on the new requirement of the adoption agency issuing an ASA for adoptive parents. Clause 10 of the Bill allows the Minister to designate or authorise adoption agencies. May I ask the Minister to share with the House what are the specific requirements for an adoption agency to be an authorised adoption agency?

I agree with the Bill setting guidelines for permissible adoption-related payments, requiring all our adoption agencies to publish information on their fees, as well as other provisions, criminalising undesirable behaviour. It is important to ensure that agencies uphold acceptable standards and moral practices. However, I am concerned about the possible compliance costs which may be incurred by such authorised adoption agencies and whether such costs will be passed on to the adoptive parents. I am concerned that the requirement should not lead to an increase in the cost of adoption fees and expenses. Certainly, for the many adoption cases involving children from overseas each year, the cost is considerable. I urge the Government to take steps to ensure that this Bill will not lead to an increase in the cost and expenses of adoption.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill also helps to facilitate adoption of children who have been placed in foster care or a children's home for many years as their birth parents continue to be unfit, or unwilling, to care for them. I can understand some of these difficult cases, the concerns about their birth parents being continually unfit to take care of their children, or even be abusive. I can also understand that some of these children may even have good and close relationships with their foster parents, making adoption a worthwhile consideration.

Nevertheless, people may change for the better over time and live to regret their past actions, while legal adoption, unlike fostering, adds a permanent and irreversible seal to an end to the legal relationship between birth parents and their children. Rehabilitation efforts, may, for some, involve a longer time than others. How do we decide between continuing a child under foster care or putting the child in foster care up for adoption? There will not be easy, one-size-fits-all solutions.

Even after the passing of this Bill, it will not and should not be an easy decision for the Court to make based on any set of general conditions, such as those in clause 37, for example, the time consideration which should be given to the parents in each type of situation listed in the clause, or for each particular case. I seek the Minister's assurance that there will still be sufficient safeguards to ensure that any adoption in these circumstances be allowed in perhaps only the most appropriate of cases.

Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that adopted children, who were foreigners at the time of birth are given citizenship at the time of the formalisation of adoption. However, ICA requires such children to take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty when they reach 21, pursuant to Article 124(1) of the Constitution.

Would the Government consider amending the law to dispense with the need for such adopted children not born in Singapore to take this oath, especially for children who were formally adopted by Singaporean parents under Singapore law within a short time after birth, for example, say, not more than one to two years after birth, and whose adoptive parents are also Singaporeans at the time of issuance of the children's Singapore citizenship certificate and birth certificate?

There are no other options for these children, unlike other categories, such as children who keep dual nationalities from birth, either by the parents' choice or at least one of the adoptive parents has a foreign nationality. Many of the adopted children would have severed their ties with their former countries, as well as their birth parents.

This Bill codifies the existing practice required by MSF for all would-be adoptive parents to first attend certain briefings, including a briefing on disclosure of adoptive status in clause 13.

Currently, MSF states on its website that prospective adopters are strongly encouraged to attend a disclosure workshop on talking with one's adopted child about adoption. The workshop will help one to understand why adopted children should know about their status and how adoptive parents can approach the subject.

These briefings have been a part of the adoption procedure for some time now. While still not mandating disclosure by parents to their adopted children of the status of their adoption, the inclusion in the Bill of the disclosure briefings is still, in my view, extremely significant, as it would help to enshrine the importance of disclosure.

There is quite a lot of literature on the benefits of disclosure, particularly early disclosure of the fact of adoption to the adopted child.

In the days of old, many parents would not tell their adopted children the fact of their adoption and some would find out later on in their life, through different sources or by accident. Many adopted children do not react well to discovering this later in their life.

Some time ago, a father shared with me his painful experience. He and his wife had adopted a child from a neighbouring country some years ago and did not disclose the fact of adoption to the child. As the child developed a different complexion from his adoptive parents as he got older, he was teased about it and had a tough time in school.