Hansard, Tuesday, 19 September 2023

1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) how many polling stations experienced technical issues with the electronic voter registration system during the 2023 Presidential Election; (b) whether cyber interference for the technical issues experienced has been ruled out; and (c) what is being done to (i) ensure that all who voted were correctly registered and (ii) prevent a repeat of situations where persons remember voting in the 2020 General Election but which names were not in the 2023 updated Registers of Electors.

2 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister in view of the Elections Department’s press statement dated 24 August 2023 regarding the wrongful removal of names from the Registers of Electors after General Election 2020 (a) how many times has this happened in the aftermath of past elections or by-elections; and (b) what steps will be taken to prevent a re-occurrence.

3 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister regarding voters who were removed from the electoral register due to an error (a) what was the total number of voters affected; (b) whether there was any individual notification exercise to expunged voters in reminding them to add their name back to the register since the last such exercise in 2019; and (c) why was a tally of the number of NRICs scanned and the number of votes collected after the last general election not conducted as a first instance check.

4 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the reasons resulting in the names of about 200 Singaporeans not being reflected in the Registers of Electors eligible to vote at Presidential Election 2023 despite voting in General Election 2020; and (b) what are measures taken to prevent such recurrence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 to 4 by Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Pritam Singh, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms He Ting Ru on today’s Order Paper, please?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me first set out the Elections Department's (ELD) key executional objectives at every election, which is to ensure: firstly, that only bona fide voters are issued with ballot papers; secondly that no extra ones were put in; and thirdly that all votes cast are counted, so that the election result is determined by the eligible voters for that election.

To achieve this, we have put in place a set of procedures that need to be complied with. Let me explain.

Upon the voter’s arrival at the polling station, the election official will verify his identity and eligibility to vote at the polling station, and then register the voter’s attendance via a hardcopy polling station register or the electronic registration system. Thereafter, the voter is directed to the ballot paper issuance counter. The election official issuing the ballot paper is required, by law, to read out the name and voter serial number of a voter before the voter is issued a ballot paper. This allows the polling agents to mark their copy of the register and provide an additional check to ensure that only eligible voters in the register for that polling station are individually issued with a ballot paper. As a result, when the votes are tallied for an election, we can be confident that the outcome is the one decided by the eligible voters for that election.

After the end of each election, ELD compiles the list of voters registered to have voted on Polling Day and compares them against the list of voters in the certified Registers of Electors for the election. Those who were not registered as having voted on Polling Day are included in the list of non-voters, which is published after each election for inspection. The non-voter list contains the names of people who have not turned up to vote. The vast majority of them did not vote either because they were not in Singapore or were ill on Polling Day. For these cases, their names were not crossed out in the hardcopy polling registers as they did not turn up at the polling stations.

After each election, there would be a few voters who claimed that they had voted even though upon checking, their names were not crossed out in the hardcopy polling registers. Thus, in reply to Mr Pritam Singh’s question, prior to the introduction of electronic registration at General Election 2020 (GE2020), ELD encountered only a few cases of voters who were on the non-voter list who claimed that they had voted.

For GE2020, GE2015 and GE2011, ELD recorded about 111,000, 155,000 and 147,000 non-voters respectively. As can be seen, the non-voter list for GE2020 was much smaller, rather than bigger, than the two previous GEs.

As per every election, ELD published the non-voter list for voters to verify about three months after GE2020. This was publicised via a press release on 5 October 2020, which was covered by the mainstream media.

Ms He asked why a tally of the number of NRICs scanned and the number of votes cast after the last general election was not conducted as a first instance check. Given the much lower number of non-voters for GE2020 compared to the two general elections before, ELD did not suspect that an unusual number of voters had not been recorded as registered. Checking the registration figures at the end of Polling Day may also not be instructive – and this is because the process to ensure voting secrecy means that we will not be able to identify individual voters, including those who had not been registered accurately and would therefore be listed as non-voters in due course. Furthermore, every voter receives only one ballot paper and the ballot boxes which contain all of the cast ballot papers are always in the custody of election officials, properly sealed, with polling and counting agents able to witness this process, and secured while in transit.

Ahead of Presidential Election 2023 (PE2023), ELD publicised that the revised Registers were available for inspection from 15 June 2023 and that the certified Registers which contains updated information from the inspection period were available for inspection from 21 July 2023. These exercises were carried out to enable Singaporeans to check their details and restore their names to the Registers ahead of the election.

From October 2020 to the day of the Writ in August this year, some 32,000 voters checked and restored their names. Similar to previous exercises, there were very few who requested ELD to restore their names due to inaccuracy in the recording of their voting status in GE2020. As such, ELD did not suspect that there were significant inaccuracies in the recording.

The list of non-voters had been opened for inspection shortly after the GE2020 and the public were reminded that the registers were available for inspection in June and July 2023 before the Writ for PE2023 was issued. Voters need not wait for these periods, but are able to check their status in the registers all year round either through Voter Services on ELD’s website, at any of the over 100 community centres or clubs or by calling ELD.

However, there remained some voters who did not check that their names were on the Registers. After the Writ was issued for PE2023 and up to Polling Day, 1,093 Singaporeans informed the ELD that they did not receive their poll card even though they said that they had voted in GE2020. For context, this number averages one voter per polling station, which had an average of 2,400 registered voters in GE2020. So, this is about one voter per polling station with an average of 2,400 registered voters in GE2020. Further, ELD’s analysis of the distribution of the affected voters showed that there is no pattern across the polling stations and that the 1,093 cases were distributed across more than 500 polling stations.

ELD has investigated this and concluded that the most probable cause of the error was that the NRIC details of these affected voters had not been captured properly by the electronic registration system, which was only introduced from GE2020. This is because the proper registration procedure may not have been followed for the affected voters, especially in some of the more crowded stations.

Let me explain. A voter’s NRIC and poll card are first checked by election officials at the registration counter before the NRIC is scanned to register the voter. When the NRIC of a voter is scanned by the barcode reader, an alert or "beep" sound will be emitted and a digital screen will flash an "OK" button, indicating that the voter data has been successfully captured in the system. At this point, the election official should tap the "OK" button to return to the registration screen so that the NRIC of the next voter can be scanned.

If the NRIC of the next voter is scanned when the screen has not returned to the registration screen, the alert sound will still be emitted, as this indicates that the NRIC has been scanned. However, the record of this voter would not have been captured. It is likely that in their effort to clear the queues at some polling stations quickly in GE2020, some election officials might have missed out this step. As a result, the registration of the affected voters was not captured.

For PE2023, we implemented a new electronic registration system with a simplified process. Election officials need not press any button to return to the registration screen to register the next voter. Therefore, the issue of non-captured registrations as a result of not pressing a button would no longer arise.

Dr Tan asked what is being done to ensure that all who voted were registered, and Dr Tan, Mr Singh and Mr Liang also asked what will be done to prevent a recurrence where those who had voted were inadvertently removed from the Registers. Going forward, besides making a public call for voters to check their status when the non-voter list is published for verification, ELD will institute an additional measure to individually inform Singaporeans on the non-voter list via mail and through SG Notify in Singpass to verify their status, and to restore their names to the Registers if need be. We thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for her suggestion.

Dr Tan asked about the number of polling stations that experienced technical issues with the electronic registration system during the recent PE2023. Based on ELD’s preliminary investigations, there was a 30% average loss in device connectivity in the first hour of polling and this reduced to 16% by 10.00 am. There was no evidence that this was caused by cyber-attacks. Instead, this could have been partly contributed by the surge in the volume of transactions during the morning peak, where about 52% of the total number of voters had already voted in the first four hours, compared to 32% in GE2020.

For PE2023, ELD had endeavoured to reduce queues and waiting times for the convenience of voters.

The number of polling stations was increased by 15% to 1,264 stations, from the 1,097 stations in GE2020. This reduced the average number of voters assigned to a polling station from about 2,400 voters in GE2020 to 2,150 voters in PE2023.

Each polling station also had more e-Registration devices than before, from between two and four devices each, proportionate to the number of voters in the polling stations, with an additional spare device each for contingency. For reference, a polling station with only two e-Registration devices can process at least six voters per minute on average, which is a 50% higher throughput compared to manual registration which does so at the rate of an average of four voters per minute.

I would like to also take this opportunity to thank our election officials who adapted quickly and kicked in the contingency measure as planned to register voters using the hard copy registers, which they had been trained to do. As a result, by about 9.55 am, ELD had reported that queues had improved at most stations. We would also like to thank voters who had to queue longer during the morning of peak hours Polling Day for their patience and understanding.

The electronic Registration system seeks to reduce waiting times and automate attendance taking for the benefit of voters. ELD will continue to enhance the system so that the registration data are captured swiftly and accurately.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. Let me first declare that I have Clementi residents who were affected and shared their concerns with me as their Member of Parliament. I declare that I have a Clementi resident who remembered voting in 2020, but in 2023, found she was not on the Registers belatedly and she regrets not having had the chance to vote and choose her President at the ballot box that day. I also have Clementi residents who saw how hard our election officials, how hard our public officers worked, and the heroic efforts made by our public officers when technical difficulties arose.

Can I ask the Minister supplementary questions on what I will call the "3Rs": reliability, resilience, responsibility?

Firstly, on reliability. When an electronic registration system is tested, is it benchmarked for 100% accuracy in the tender requirements, at least as good as paper, if not better?

On resilience, can I ask ahead of the Presidential Election, was there a proper full-dress rehearsal, incorporating set-up, log-in, getting the terminals up and ready, and then, comprehensive load-testing beyond what would be the traditional expected loads, to stress test the system? This is because I have residents who have concerns about whether someday, there may be cyber interference and we know what advanced persistent threats are out there.

Lastly, the third "R", on responsibility. I note that the ELD website mentions "Your vote decides the future of Singapore". How we design these systems also shapes the voting process as well. Can the Minister assure us that ELD will do its level best to learn from this and continue improving, in particular, contractor specifications, tender requirements, so that the situations like these can be avoided in future?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let me respond to the three supplementary questions.

I will start with the third one. Yes, definitely, ELD will continue to improve just as per every election. We will take in the debrief and feedback from all members of the public and also Members in this Chamber, and ELD will continue to seek to strive better, be it process wise or the technical issues that we face. So, that is the third question that Dr Tan asked.

The second one, on the issue of reliability, yes, indeed, ELD has specifications on the reliability standards. And let me perhaps take this question a bit further to explain what we mean by "reliability standards". The reliability of a system depends on a few parts and to answer the second question, all these were also stress tested. First, we have to make sure that the hardware is functioning well. Second, we have to make sure that the connectivity between the over 4,500 systems all around the island, is connected well and has certain redundancy. And third, we have to make sure that the software is also working fine.

Sir, as I have explained, the first is that, for this particular PE, we have ruled out the issue of a cyber-attack. The second is that we have also checked that the hardware has worked well and it was not the main contributing factor to the slowness in the first few hours, the slowness that started at 8.30 am that lasted until about 10.00 am during Polling Day. The third thing is about connectivity. For all the polling stations, we had double redundancy to make sure that we did not rely on any particular network, and this was also stress tested during the run-up. In fact, ELD undertook the technical tests. Prior to Polling Day itself, they conducted full-dress rehearsals with all the devices on, to check the connectivity and hardware issues; and they were satisfied that they were all in working condition.

ELD, in the initial findings, has pretty much narrowed this down to a technical issue that has to do with the software. And let me explain it in layman's terms as follows. In ELD's stress tests, they stress test a certain volume of transactions within a certain amount of time. So, this election, notwithstanding the fact that within the first four hours, 52% of the people have voted compared to 32% in the last GE, we had stress tested that scenario.

But there was one particular feature that perhaps, in hindsight, the technical officers could have looked deeper into. And that is when all the devices were sending messages to the central server and when the inordinate amount of surge happened, some of the messages did not get through. And when the packets of messages did not get through, the system kept trying. And because as the system kept trying, it continued to pile up a backlog of packets that have to be cleared.

When ELD technical officers realised this, after 8.30 am when this thing happened, they quickly increased the memory and computing power capacity, and this helped us to quickly resolve the issue. So, if you like, some messages did not get through, they continued to pile up, creating a backlog and it caused a bit of a cascade effect. But with the quick discovery of this problem, the ELD officers were able to quickly increase the computing power and also the memory in order to clear the backlog. But once the backlog had set in, it took us about an hour plus to clear the backlog and return the clearance speed to normal.

But I must say, even with assurance about the redundancy, ELD's planning norms are such that in every polling station, even if the electronic registration systems failed, we will be able to clear the queues with the manual processes, as we had done in the past. So, the baseline is that manual processes will allow us to comfortably clear all the voters in that polling station. On top of that, if this is supplemented by the electronic system, it will help us to speed up the clearance even faster. Which is why, for this particular PE, even though there were 52% of the voters voting in the first four hours, by about 10.00 am in the morning, we had pretty much managed to clear all the queues and clear 52% of the voters within the first four hours.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Sir, between 11 and 24 August, ELD's press release of 24 August stated that about 200 Singaporeans had informed ELD that their names were not in the Registers of Electors even though they had voted in GE2020. The Minister said in his reply that this number is now 1,093. Based on the Minister's reply, will the ELD be sending letters and notifications to all non-voters in GE2020 who have not applied to put themselves back on the Registers of Electors to ensure that no voter has been struck off, due to the additional steps in the electronic registration system process that was employed in GE2020?

Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his supplementary questions. First, let me assure Mr Pritam Singh all the 1,093 voters who were left out or not registered properly for PE2023, all their names have been restored to the Registers. And now ELD is doing the reconciliation for PE2023. We will be sending all those in the non-voters list for PE2023 personal notifications, as I have explained, to encourage them to verify their status.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. Two further questions for the Minister. Firstly, given that voting is compulsory in Singapore, why does ELD not automatically update all the citizens' names on the Registers of Electors after each election? That will minimise some of these problems that we have just talked about.

My second question is what is the purpose of this administrative step for those who did not vote in the last election, to apply for their names to be restored to the Registers? Is this necessary or is the purpose still meaningful today, given that it can open up to potential operational slips and also additional administrative work for ELD and the voters as well, since they have to go and put their names back? So, is the purpose still a meaningful one?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his feedback. Precisely because voting is compulsory, the Election Acts requires that the names of the non-voters be expunged from the Registers if they did not vote. This is in the Election Acts. And a penalty of $50 must be paid for one's name to be restored if he or she does not provide a valid reason for not voting. The penalty is waived if the voter is able to provide a valid reason such as being overseas on Polling Day. Otherwise, he or she will no longer be able to vote in future elections, or to stand nominated as a candidate for elections. In other words, the penalty for not voting and the process of expunging the names of non-voters, give effect to the notion of compulsory voting. Starting on a clean slate with no penalty will undermine this.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first being, leaving aside secrecy, which of course we agree is very important, does ELD have data about how many total identity cards were scanned during GE2020 versus how many votes were eventually recorded as being cast during the election? That would actually give us a first instance indication of whether there is any discrepancy beyond the 1,097 voters that have contacted ELD to say that they voted but their names were erroneously removed from the Register. That is my first question.

My second question is, I note that in a reply to one of my Parliamentary Questions in 2020, the Minister stated then that, in 2019 and 2016, one-off exercises were done to remind voters whose names were not on the Registers to ask them to take action and to re-apply to go back onto the Registers. I am just wondering whether we can do a one-off sweep to all voters, including voters that were removed from the Registers prior to GE2020 and PE2023, to ask them to take action to put their names back on. And also, in that vein, whether or not we can make it standard practice after every election that ELD would then send out a notice to voters who did not vote, asking them to apply, so that you do not just rely on press releases?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer Ms He Ting Ru's first question. At the end of every Polling Day, there will be a combination of electronic records in the current system plus some manual records. Because in instances where the electronic system malfunctions or fails for whatever reason, we will have to rely on the manual record. So, at the end of each Polling Day, we would not immediately have the numbers because there is the electronic dataset, which we have to reconcile with the manual set. So, that is the answer to the first question. And even if we can reconcile it immediately, it will not be able to tell us who are the non-voters accurately.

On the second question, indeed, it is not so much about a one-time sweep or when the voters can check their names. As I have explained in my reply, once the reconciliation is done, from that period until the next election when the Writ is issued, at any point in time, the voters can check their status. And we agree with you; we encourage all the voters to check their status anytime. It is not just only during the period when ELD publicises this. ELD will of course still make the publications, but the voters can go to any of the community centres (CCs) or the ELD website to check their status.

On top of that, this time round, we are specifically adding this extra step whereby those who are in the non-voters list will be encouraged to go and check their status way ahead of the next election.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Speaker. To the Minister, just on my earlier supplementary question, the 200 and later on the number was revised to 1,093, these are individuals who got in touch with ELD to inform ELD that, "I am not on the list although I did vote in 2020".

My question is, again, based on your reply, the Minister said, following GE2020, there were 111,000 non-voters. And then, from October 2020 to August 2023, 32,000 individuals applied to restore their names. So, this 32,000 would have to be a part of this 111,000 who were non-voters. My point is there is possibly another 80,000 voters who, as of PE2023, could also be non-voters but who voted in GE2020?

I just want to confirm whether ELD is also going to reach out to everyone to ensure that they have not been erroneously struck off the voting list. I hope the Minister got the subject matter of my first supplementary question.

Let me explain the numbers. There are 111,000 non-voters. The vast bulk of these non-voters, be it in GE2011, GE2015 or GE2020, were either overseas or some of them could be very old and very frail and so, did not vote. They are the vast bulk of these. For the 32,000 who asked to be restored, chances are that most of them were perhaps overseas or ill on that day and they have asked to be restored.

I do not think you will have 111,000 minus the 32,000 and, therefore, you end up with about 79,000 persons who have voted. That would not happen because, from the numbers, you will know that this is not the case. Also, from the previous experience, we know that the number of people who are so-called registered wrongly is not in that order of magnitude.

Perhaps, I should explain, just to put aside any doubt that this has in any way affected the accuracy or validity of the results. Of course, the first thing I must say is this – ELD will endeavour to make sure that we minimise the error to as close to zero as possible. It is very difficult because, whether it is the manual or electronic system, sometimes, there will be an error. But we will endeavour to make sure that this error is the minimum possible.

But just to give a bit of context as to what the error rate is like. Just now, I have explained that a typical polling station will have about, say, 2,500 voters. And the error, as what we have described just now, on average, is about one per polling station, which means about one in 2,500. That is the margin of error.

If we look at our recent GE results, the closest contest, if I remember correctly, should be Potong Pasir in 2011. It is about 100-plus votes difference out of about 20,000 voters. So, that margin is about one in 200 or thereabouts. That is the winning margin, the closest ever. But our error, the closest ever, is more like one in 2,000 – or rather, less than one in 2,000.

So, I just want to assure the public that ELD has gone through the records and, while there is a margin of error, this margin of error is nowhere to the extent that it will call into question any of the election results that we had in recent memories.

Okay, one last clarification.

Yes, Minister. Maybe I was not clear about the so-called 80,000. I am not saying that in all the 80,000 cases, there would have been some mistake. I am just saying there could be some individuals who voted in GE2020, but they had not informed ELD yet, that is the group that I am concerned with.

Just very quickly and continuing on what the Minister said towards the end about ELD, on the day the press release was sent, I dropped a note to ELD because I had members of the public who wrote to me about this problem – and I would just like to say that ELD replied on the same day and assured me that they were looking into the matter. I think it is important to also assure members of the public that ELD has been quite forthright in its communication with me.

Yes, indeed. So, 111,000 after the 32,000 – we will do the reconciliation again this time – exactly like what I said, we will send all those on the non-voters' list an individual reminder henceforth to remind them to make the check. So, we do not rule out that there could be a few more who may have voted but may have recorded wrongly.

And going forward, we will always do this process. That means, all those on the non-voters' list, for whatever reason they are on the non-voters' list, we will send them an individual reminder, on top of the public service announcements that we have made.

5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the drainage improvement works at Bukit Timah Canal between Rifle Range Road and Jalan Kampong Chantek can be expedited.

Mr Speaker, the Bukit Timah area has been historically prone to flooding due to its topography and high level of urbanisation. Over the past decade, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has been progressively upgrading its drainage infrastructure to mitigate flood risks in this area. Notably, PUB completed the construction of the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal in 2019.

In the same year, PUB commenced drainage upgrading works to widen and deepen the Bukit Timah Canal from Rifle Range Road to Jalan Kampong Chantek. When these works are completed, Bukit Timah Canal can convey 30% more rainwater to better meet the long-term challenge of increasing rainfall intensity.

This is part of PUB’s continual efforts to enhance our drainage network to better mitigate inland floods. PUB has invested almost $2 billion on drainage improvement works in the last decade and another $1.4 billion has been set aside to carry out further improvements to the drainage system from 2021 to 2025.

Climate change does not only bring about heavy rainfall but also drier weather conditions which may affect our water supply. Long-term planning and investments in weather-resilient water sources like NEWater and desalination are important. In the last five years, PUB has invested about $3 billion in key long-term water supply investments, including desalination plants, NEWater factories and expansion of its used water infrastructure, and will continue with such investments.

Since the announcement of PUB’s upgrading plans of the Bukit Timah Canal, NParks has also confirmed plans to implement the Bukit Timah-Rochor Green Corridor in the same area. PUB has been working closely with NParks to dovetail the drainage improvement works with the Green Corridor works. This would avoid prolonged traffic diversion along Bukit Timah Road and the inconvenience it would pose for residents, motorists, business owners and other stakeholders. However, as a result, the completion of drainage improvement works will be delayed from 2024 to 2026. We seek the patience and understanding of stakeholders during the construction works.

To reduce flood risks in the interim, PUB has completed several additional measures in 2022. These include raising a 450-metre stretch of Dunearn Road and deepening a 600-metre stretch of Bukit Timah Canal.

With more intense weather events arising from climate change, it is not feasible to expand our drains to cater for every extreme rainfall event. This would require massive land take and much higher costs. We will need to be prepared for occasional short incidences of flash floods.

I strongly encourage members of the public to use PUB’s communication channels to receive alerts on flood warnings, so that they can adjust their commuting plans accordingly. Managing flood risks is a collective effort.

6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government’s position is that non-vulnerable Singaporeans should continue to get their booster shots to keep their vaccination against COVID-19 current; and (b) how long more will Singaporeans continue to be able to get their booster shots free-of-charge.

7 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) whether an update can be provided on the Ministry's review of the remaining post-COVID-19 measures currently in place such as the mask-wearing requirement in healthcare settings; (b) whether there are plans to modify this measure to make mask-wearing non-mandatory in healthcare settings; and (c) if so, when will this change take place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 6 and 7 together?

Please do.

Thank you, Sir. My response will also cover the matters raised in the written question by Ms Joan Pereira.

Sir, since the transition to Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON) Green in February 2023, all COVID-19 measures have been stepped down, with the exception of the National Vaccination Programme (NVP) which serves as our first line of defence against the fast-mutating COVID-19 virus. However, we have also adjusted our normal time practices, such as requiring mask wearing in patient-facing settings, to better protect patients and healthcare workers from respiratory infectious diseases in general, not just for COVID-19. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to monitor the broader communicable disease situation, review our disease control practices and adjust our approach.

New COVID-19 variants will continue to emerge. The latest variants of interests are EG.5 and BA.2.86, which have a number of additional mutations compared with previous Omicron variants. Fortunately, so far, the science and empirical evidence show that existing vaccines continue to accord good protection against severe illness for individuals.

The pharmaceutical industry continues to update COVID-19 vaccines to preserve the effectiveness against new variants. For example, Pfizer’s latest vaccine specifically targets XBB1.

5. Our contracts with suppliers enable us to procure the latest vaccines once they are assessed to be appropriate for the local situation.

Recently, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has approved the monovalent XBB 1.5 vaccine from Pfizer for patients aged six months and above and is reviewing other XBB.1.5 vaccines. The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination is currently reviewing the data of the updated Comirnaty vaccine and will be providing its recommendations. The updated Comirnaty vaccine could arrive in Singapore by end-October. We will share more details when operational arrangements are confirmed.

We are able to achieve DORSCON Green not because COVID-19 became a mild disease. It is still a dangerous virus, especially for our vulnerable individuals and seniors. We can live with the virus now because our resilience has strengthened due to vaccinations and safe recovery from infections.

It is, therefore, important for us to maintain our resilience. That is why MOH strongly recommends that seniors aged 60 years and above, as well as residents living in aged care facilities and medically vulnerable persons, continue to receive a booster dose of the updated vaccine one year after their last booster dose. Healthy persons aged 12 to 59 may also receive the additional dose in 2023, which remains free under NVP, if they choose to. There are no plans to charge for COVID-19 vaccines because vaccines still play a critical role in keeping COVID-19 at bay.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Just one supplementary question. May I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the long-term COVID-19 exit strategy for Singapore and whether we have attained herd immunity such that continued vaccination will be optional from now on? I am glad to hear the Senior Minister of State mention that there are no plans to charge for booster shots going forward and that those aged 12 to 59 would still be advised to take their vaccines.

The COVID-19 situation is quite dynamic. The virus mutates. What it does, it is still changing. So, there is really insufficient data to commit to a long-term vaccination strategy at this time. MOH will continue to monitor the situation closely. We will take into account expert advice, the latest evidence and will update our recommendations on the basis of those, as needed.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would just like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether, in his opinion, there is vaccination fatigue now, whether the vaccination rate is dropping partly because people are feeling it is much safer now and also for fear of the side-effects of vaccination. If so, what is MOH's strategy to deal with this vaccination fatigue and whether there is a long-term plan, like what the Senior Minister of State just mentioned?

Sir, I thank Dr Lim for his very important question. The core of the strategy is educating the public, engaging them on their fears and concerns and explaining to them the importance of vaccination and not just for COVID-19 but for many other diseases. Vaccination works and it is an important part of how we defend ourselves against infectious diseases. We will continue to provide public health education materials, engage the public on their fears and concerns, and we hope that the Members of this House will help us in doing so.

8 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Majulah Package for Singaporeans can be modified to include items for which only age, and not housing type and income, form the eligibility criteria.

9 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Majulah Package can be amended to encompass elements where sole age-based qualifications are applicable, excluding considerations of housing category and income.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 8 and 9 together?

Please go ahead.

Thank you. Sir, the Majulah Package is meant to boost the retirement and healthcare adequacy of Singapore Citizens who were born on 31 December 1973 or earlier.

The key segments we want to help are the “young seniors” who are now in their 50s and early 60s. They have benefited from Singapore’s economic growth and our investments in education, healthcare and social security. Hence, we have designed the Majulah Package to provide more support to those with lower incomes and less wealth.

Nevertheless, we recognise that there may be concerns that are common to all Singaporeans within this group. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) will therefore consider these suggestions by Ms Phua and Mr Edward Chia, as we finalise the parameters of the Majulah Package. Details on the Majulah Package will be announced in Budget 2024.

Ms Denise Phua.

I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Thank you also for being so positive in considering my inputs and hon Member Edward Chia's inputs.

The Majulah Package as it was announced at first, sounds like it is going to be means tested. And I can understand why because the state has limited resources. But like what Senior Minister of State just mentioned, there are some common needs amongst people of this age group, and therefore, I want to make a call to MOF to design the Majulah Package to be more like the Merdeka and the Pioneer Packages, which are very well designed and very inclusive. It had overall cash payouts, MediSave top-ups, outpatient subsidies and even health screening. I understand that you may not be able to design it totally like the previous packages, but I thought that we could learn more from the lessons from the design of these two earlier packages, for consideration.

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Phua for her suggestions and MOF will certainly consider her suggestions as we design the Majulah Package.

10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what will be the measure of success of the recently launched Healthy Longevity Clinic; and (b) whether there are plans to expand the services offered by the Healthy Longevity Clinic to other parts of Singapore, particularly polyclinics, when the current pilot at Alexandra Hospital proves to be successful.

The launch of the Healthy Longevity Clinic at Alexandra Hospital was very well covered in the media and generated much public interest. It is essentially a research project to try to develop effective and practical interventions for the future.

The clinic is therefore recruiting research participants for now, and there are currently no plans for the longevity clinic services to be offered at polyclinics and other public hospitals. But we hope with investments in research and development in longevity science and supported by national policies such as Healthier SG and Age Well SG, we will develop the capabilities to support our population to live long and healthy lives.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I think the pilot clinic is at Alexandra Hospital, which is very near to my Radin Mas constituency. So, the residents have been quite excited over it.

It seems that the goal of the Healthy Longevity Clinic seems to have many parallels with the national Healthier SG programme, as both seek similar direction to enhance health spans by preventing and managing chronic conditions. I would like to ask the Minister; can he clarify what are the key differences between these two programmes? As I read from the news article, the Healthy Longevity Clinic has been designed to serve as an affordable alternative to private clinics with more affordable tests and treatments.

I think unfortunately, the title "Healthy Longevity Clinic" will attract a lot of people who want to live long. Every one of us want to. But what it actually is, is a research project and it is different from evidence-based screening where it is available on a population basis and already clinical tests, like blood tests, metabolic immune cardiovascular tests, they are all already available under existing programmes and for many of us, it is highly subsidised. So, I would recommend that those who want and should be testing for their health, want to diagnose whether they have something going on that will affect their health, go for these programmes.

Whereas this project is really a barrage of screening tests beyond what a person would normally go through. It takes a lot of discipline, it takes a lot of commitment and therefore, unless you are committed to be a research participant, I would beseech that you do not participate because this takes a lot of time, and the results are not meant to guide your health but to guide research.

11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower whether the withdrawal limit of $5,000 from the CPF Special and Ordinary Account savings for Singaporeans who have not met their Full Retirement Sum can be increased to match the rate of inflation.

Mr Speaker, the intent of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is to meet members' long-term retirement needs. Increasing the $5,000 unconditional withdrawal limit will only lower members' future monthly retirement payouts, especially for those who have not met their required retirement sum. To help Singaporeans cope with inflation and the rising cost of living, the Government has instead rolled out a comprehensive series of measures to provide immediate and targeted support which have helped the lower-income and the more vulnerable groups.

Nonetheless, the CPF system has some built-in some flexibility. For those who turned 55 from 2013 onwards, they can withdraw up to 20% of their Retirement Account savings from age 65. Property owners also have the flexibility to set aside the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) with a mixture of property and cash and can thus withdraw their Retirement Account savings above the Basic Retirement Sum or BRS.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, can I pose one supplementary question to the Minister? Given that we are going to implement the Majulah Package, this will lead to the beefing up of the CPF Retirement Account for the lower-income Singaporeans.

Given that, will the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reconsider its policy stance with regard to increasing the $5,000 withdrawal for the lower-income CPF account holders? Given that besides retirement, many Singaporeans would also like to realise some of their lifetime ambition, some of the things they like to do, at the age of 55. So, in line with the inflation that we have experienced over the last few decades, the $5,000 withdrawal amount appears to be too small. So, will MOM reconsider that amount?

I thank Mr Leong for that question. All of us in MOM, alongside with the CPF Board, constantly and consistently review the whole suite of measures that we have at hand to help Singaporeans. It is our commitment to all Singaporeans that we will walk every step of the way with you.

I think, coming from an investment background, Mr Leong would understand that there are some savings that are for the long term and there are also short-term measures to help out. We have always believed that the CPF system offers, over the long haul, adequacy for peace of mind at retirement.

We can support our Singaporeans to managing some of the increased cost of living through the many measures that we have introduced over the last many years. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you can bear with me, I can enumerate some of the schemes for illustration.

For the immediate cost of living issues, the Government has announced one-off support measures under the Assurance Package at Budget this year. So, you have got the Cost-of-Living Special Payment of between $200 and $400 for each eligible adult Singaporean. Then, there is the Cost-of-Living Seniors' Bonus of between $200 and $300 for eligible Singaporeans aged 55 and above.

There is also a doubling of U-Save Rebates provided to households over the next three tranches of disbursement in 2023. In total, eligible households can expect to receive up to $760 in U-Save Rebates this year.

During COVID-19, the Government also introduced a comprehensive suite of measures at the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets. I would not go into details.

Back in 2008 and 2009, during the Global Financial Crisis, the Government also introduced the Resilience Package which included a doubling of Goods and Service Tax (GST) credits and Senior Citizens' Bonus in 2009. There were Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates, as well as personal income tax rebate.

To Mr Leong's point further in terms of giving them something as an uplift upon reaching 55, I think there is a very delicate balance and series of trade-offs between that and to provide for a longer-term payout for them. We do not rest on our laurels. We constantly look and review the policy and looking at the broader context of the savings, the percentage of people attaining the BRS; we are not completely closed off. I hope that addresses his question.

12 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether an update can be provided on the sustainability audit carried out from last year's Singapore Grand Prix; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider ensuring that the sustainability audit for the Singapore Grand Prix and the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions sector being developed this year includes timelines for (i) measurement of Scope 3 emissions that are indirect emissions occurring in the value chain of the reporting company and (ii) requirements to set interim emissions targets for 2030.

13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry is considering any mechanisms to be put in place to ensure a substantive portion of emission reductions from the Singapore Grand Prix and other Meeting, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions sector events are driven from actual emission cuts within their direct control and value chain, rather than carbon-offset driven.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 12 and 13 on today's Order Paper together?

Please proceed.

Both questions relate to the sustainability efforts for Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix and the meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (MICE) industry.

The Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix's carbon footprint was measured for the first time in 2022. Energy use made up the majority of emissions at 96.1%, while the remaining 3.9% were Scope 3 emissions from transport, waste and water. These findings were published in the Environmental, Social and Governance report by the race promoter, Singapore GP Pte Ltd or SGP on 8 September 2023. A similar audit will be conducted for the race this year.

More than 60% of the energy used by SGP is supplied by on-site generators. The remainder is drawn from our electricity grid. SGP aims to halve the energy emissions from the race by 2028. This will be done through reducing energy consumption, increasing the use of renewable energy and powering the on-site generators with alternative fuels that have lower carbon emissions. The race promoter has also switched to energy-efficient LED track lightings which reduces electricity use by at least 30% compared to the previous metal-halide bulbs. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are then used to offset the electricity that still needs to be drawn from the grid.

For the MICE industry, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and Singapore Association of Convention and Exhibition Organisers and Suppliers (SACEOS) are working with event organisers to start tracking the industry’s waste and carbon emissions from this year onwards. This is one of the targets that we have set under the MICE Sustainability Roadmap that was launched last year. The roadmap also sets out strategies that prioritise industry capability building in sustainability, through driving standards and innovations that are primarily targeted at emissions reductions.

We will continue to finetune our plans to manage carbon emissions for the Singapore Grand Prix and the MICE industry in the coming years ahead.

14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development regarding the use of live chickens and chicks in an art installation at the National Gallery Singapore (a) whether veterinary expert inputs have been sought prior to the deployment of the chickens; and (b) what is known regarding the impact on the animals' well-being during and after participation in the art installation.

Sir, under the Animals and Birds (Pet Shop and Exhibition) Rules, a valid licence is required for any exhibition of animals, to safeguard animal health and welfare. The National Parks Board (NParks) assesses all such applications to ensure that they comply with its licensing requirements.

For the art installation that the Member has referred to, NParks conducted a site inspection and obtained the input of one of its veterinarians, before issuing a licence to the National Gallery Singapore (NGS) for the exhibition. Through the inspection, NParks had assessed that the poultry would be provided with adequate food, water and rest, as well as appropriate housing. As the exhibition would raise awareness on animal welfare, NParks had also assessed that it would fulfil the licensing condition for public education.

NGS also worked closely with Chicken Rescue Rehome (CRR), a local chicken rehoming group, to put in place safeguards such as requiring visitors to keep a distance and to avoid flash photography. Along with regular checks by CRR representatives and a dedicated team of carers, these measures ensured the well-being of the poultry throughout the five-day exhibition period.

Sir, the poultry were then returned to the care of the Ground-Up Initiative, which had loaned them to NGS, and all of them continued to show signs of good health.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I would like to declare that some young Singaporeans around Clementi had seen the news in TODAY online about live chickens and chicks being used in an art installation at NGS. Some of these young Singaporeans felt very concerned, some as young as Primary 5 and Primary 6. They shared their views with me, and I raise these views on their behalf.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if he can confirm exactly what happened to these chickens and chicks after they were made use of for the art installation? When was the last check done on the well-being of these animals? Did they show any evidence of distress or harm thereafter? Because it has to be a longitudinal follow-up to make sure they are still alright.

Can I also ask the Senior Minister of State, given the profile of the venue, NGS, is this a trend of what is going to come? Because there are some young Singaporeans who are concerned, notwithstanding the educational objectives described, about what message we are sending when animals are made use of in an art installation in this way.

These are legitimate views, and I would like to seek the Ministry of National Development's (MND) view on these as well.

Sir, I am very heartened that the children in Clementi are very caring and have a heart for animals. I do hope that this is something that they will carry back to the community, to care for the different animals in it.

On the questions that the Member has raised, let me take them in turn. On the first, allow me to reiterate what I said in my earlier reply. A licence is required from NParks before an exhibition of live animals can be held. As part of the licence application process, NParks does look into the health, safety and welfare of the animals, including the provision of food, rest and housing, before the licence application is approved. As part of the licence application, NParks also looks at whether the exhibition has a public education element.

As I mentioned earlier, our understanding for this art installation was that the animals would be there for a few days and the installation is meant to raise awareness on animal welfare and the need to care for and to live with the animals in our community.

The last check that we did was when the poultry were returned to the Ground-Up Initiative, which had loaned them to NGS. When we checked with the organisers, they confirmed that the poultry were in good health.

On the other question that the Member had on whether this is a trend and if there will be more such exhibitions involving live animals, I cannot speak for event organisers or venues that host such exhibitions. But what I can assure the Member and his residents is that NParks will assess each application carefully and make sure that they comply with the necessary requirements, including safeguarding animal health and welfare.

15 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the income criteria for the blue and orange Community Health Assistance Scheme (CHAS) card will be raised in view of the recent inflation; (b) how many households have appealed for blue and orange CHAS cards for the past two years and of which, how many appeals have been rejected due to the household monthly income per person criteria; and (c) whether CHAS subsidies will be reviewed due to the recent high medical inflation.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) regularly reviews the income criteria and subsidy levels for our healthcare subsidy schemes. Both the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidy levels and income criteria were last reviewed in 2019. From early next year, CHAS cardholders can benefit from the Healthier SG Chronic Tier, if they enrol with a Healthier SG general practitioner (GP) clinic.

In the last two years, MOH has received around 14,000 appeals for changes of CHAS card status. Three in four managed to upgrade their cards. MOH considers all appeals on a case-by-case basis to review applicants’ means and circumstances, beyond just applying eligibility criteria of per capita household income or the annual value of their homes.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker, and also, thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. I have three supplementary questions. First, we understand that MOH last reviewed the income criteria in 2019, which was pre-COVID-19, and inflation was still low. But in the past three years, the headline inflation and core inflation have hit 5%. So, will MOH consider incorporating an inflation index or a wage index in the income criteria so that it will always move with the time when determining the income criteria for the various CHAS cards?

The second supplementary question is, of the 14,000 appeals for card upgrades that MOH received, how many were successful?

The last supplementary question is, would MOH consider incorporating an inflation index into the amount of subsidies that each CHAS card would give to the residents, so that again, it would always move in tandem with inflation, and you would not have to review every three or four years?

I thank the Member for the questions. I appreciate his concerns in this matter. I had mentioned earlier that three in four of the appeals are successful. That is quite a large number. We do look into the specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

As to the suggestion, as I mentioned, we do regularly review the income criteria. It is a constant practice. We note that things have evolved and changed, post pandemic. And so, we will take into account the suggestions and the inputs that the Member has given in our constant review in this matter. We do look at it holistically, including the circumstances of the matter and the inflation index in our assessment of the review.

16 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider providing Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) interpretation services during significant Government live TV broadcasts; (b) when will SgSL receive official recognition as one of Singapore’s languages given its legal status in 77 countries as a sign-language used by the deaf; and (c) whether there are plans to increase support for SgSL instruction providers and to increase the number of SgSL interpreters.

Mr Speaker, since April 2020, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) has required TV broadcasts of significant national and public interest, such as National Day Rally and Budget speeches, to be accompanied by Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) interpretation. MCI will continue to make Government communications and information more accessible and inclusive to the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing community, and work with Mediacorp to enhance accessibility features on free-to-air (FTA) TV channels.

For students who require signing support in schools, SgSL is the language for academic instruction and communication. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has designated mainstream and special education schools to provide signing support in SgSL for students diagnosed with hearing loss. Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have funds to support students diagnosed with hearing loss, including sign language interpretation services.

In the community, the Singapore Association for the Deaf (SADeaf) is funded to promote the use of SgSL and to provide deaf access services, which include SgSL interpretation, note-taking services, and sign language courses. Deaf and hard-of-hearing persons can also tap on the Temasek-Trust CDC Lifelong Learning Enabling Fund to pay for their sign language class fees and deaf access services when attending training courses by selected providers.

The Government is studying the recognition of SgSL as Singapore’s official sign language, in consultation with the Deaf community. As SgSL is currently already used in practice, we need to consider how official recognition will bring tangible benefits to the Deaf community. Instead, we will continue to work with the Deaf community to improve the provision of deaf access services to the community.

17 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the record high tax revenue in the last financial year ending 31 March 2023 (a) whether the Ministry expects the tax revenue growth trend to continue for the rest of the current financial year; and (b) whether the Government will consider additional monetary payouts to Singaporeans, over and above those that have been announced, to combat inflation rather than waiting for the next Budget in 2024.

Mr Speaker, our tax revenue collections have grown broadly in line with Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The higher tax revenue collection in financial year 2022 (FY2022), compared to the previous year, was due to our economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. While some of this growth momentum has benefited tax revenue collections in FY2023, it is unclear whether the trend can continue due to the uncertain global economic outlook.

The Government understands that cost of living remains a key concern. That is why we had enhanced the Assurance Package to $9.6 billion in Budget 2023 to provide Singaporeans with additional financial support. More support is provided to lower- and middle-income families, as well as seniors staying in both public and private estates.

As Prime Minister Lee mentioned at the 2023 National Day Rally, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is currently studying further enhancements to the Assurance Package. We will announce more details shortly, after the review is completed.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. Will the Senior Minister of State be able to shed some light on whether the amount of tax collected in the first quarter of FY2023, which means from May up to August this year, has increased as compared to the same period in the last financial year?

Secondly, we understand that MOF is reviewing to enhance the Assurance Package. Will the Senior Minister of State be able to shed light on whether it will come in the form of cash or some vouchers? Because giving vouchers would have an expansionary effect on the economy, where they have to spend. But if you give cash alone, people may put that in their savings, and they do not spend.

Mr Speaker, the tax collection, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, is in tandem with the performance of the economy and the GDP. There is a bit of time lag. So, we collect the taxes, say, in a particular period, it actually refers to the economic activity several months back in a previous period. That is why I mentioned that the collection, there is a certain momentum that we are seeing even in the current financial year arising from the stronger economic performance and recovery post-COVID-19 pandemic. But whether this can continue, this is something that we need to watch very carefully because, as Mr Ang would be aware, there are some dark clouds in the global economy and the economic outlook for this year is unlikely to be as strong as, say, last year. So, these are things which we have to monitor carefully.

But, nevertheless, the point that I made in my main reply that we understand that there are cost of living concerns because that remains a concern for many Singaporean families and the Government will look at how we can provide more help. We will study whether there are ways to enhance the Assurance Package and, in particular, we have been providing not just vouchers but also cash components and many other types of assistance to Singaporeans within the Assurance Package and that is something that we will look at as well – how to channel the resources to provide the maximum impact.

18 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of rising global food prices and export controls imposed on rice and its substitutes, what measures will the Ministry implement to mitigate the impact and assist the lower- and middle-income groups.

19 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the upcoming inflationary outlook in view of the latest rising food and energy prices; and (b) what are the further measures to mitigate the impact to households and businesses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 18 and 19 on today’s Order Paper together as they pertain to inflation as well as support for households and businesses?

Please proceed.

Inflation in Singapore has eased in recent months. The Consumer Price Index (CPI)-All Items inflation fell to 4.1% on a year-on-year basis in July, from 6.6% in January. Similarly, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Core Inflation eased from 5.5% to 3.8% over the same period. For the rest of 2023, inflation should slow further as import costs are likely to remain lower relative to a year ago. For the full year, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) expects CPI-All Items inflation to average 4.5% to 5.5%, while the MAS Core Inflation is projected to be 3.5% to 4.5%. Nevertheless, upside risks remain, including from further shocks to the global economy and global commodity prices and supply chains.

The Government has taken a multi-pronged approach to help households and businesses cope with inflation.

We have introduced measures to help lower- and middle-income households manage the higher cost of living. For example, the Assurance Package in Budget 2023 provided a Cost-of-Living Special Payment of between $200 and $400 and additional Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers for eligible Singaporean households.

The Government is also helping businesses manage rising costs. For instance, we enhanced the Enterprise Financing Scheme in Budget 2023 to reduce businesses’ borrowing needs. To mitigate higher energy prices, Government schemes, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant and the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions, help businesses become more energy-efficient.

MAS will continue to keep the Singapore dollar strong, which dampens imported inflation.

Finally, to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions, the Government has worked with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to onboard more retailers onto its Price Kaki app. Price Kaki, of course, promotes price transparency by providing easy and timely comparisons of grocery and hawker food prices.

We will continue to monitor trends in inflation and do even more to help Singaporeans, businesses and households, if necessary.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. Would the Ministry consider efforts to encourage our consumers to switch to non-basmati white rice alternatives, some of which may even be healthier or more nutritious, in order to diversify away from our country's reliance on white rice imports?

I thank the Member for the question. Maybe also to share a little bit of background on global rice prices. Global rice prices, in fact, have risen in recent months because of India's ban on the export of non-basmati white rice and, of course, adverse weather conditions. So, if you look at the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) All Rice Price Index, it has increased by 31.2% in August year-on-year. That is the rice price. But if you look at the global rice of most other food commodities, they have fallen. The overall FAO Food Price Index has actually dropped by 11.8% in August year-on-year.

I am giving Members the bigger picture so that we can see how we can better address this. The Government has also then strengthened food supply resilience both by diversifying the food import sources as well as encouraging local production.

So, in July 2023, when India banned the non-basmati white rice exports, we requested the Indian government for waiver from the ban for our domestic food security requirements. The Indian government acceded, and our multiple import sources and our rice stockpile scheme have also allowed us to mitigate the impact of these disruptions.

I also encourage Singaporeans to widen their choice of food, including different kinds of rice. I also encourage everyone to use the Price Kaki app by CASE to choose as well as to find out the prices of rice between different retailers as well. So, widen your scope. There are different sources of rice and different prices of rice as well.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, we continue to see domestically driven cost pressure in addition to the external imported factors, like higher energy and commodity prices. I would like to ask the Minister of State – with this cumulative effect over the last two to three years, has the Government studied how that has impacted the low- to middle-income and the businesses, and what are the measures we can take to help mitigate some of the cumulative increases over the last two, three years?

The other question is on the trend of the energy and commodity prices. They are all elevated back again, and I wanted to know what MTI can do to help moderate some of these cost pressures, especially to the businesses.

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. With regard to the impact, particularly on the lower- and middle-income households, in fact, if you look at the January to June figures, the impact of inflation rates were lower for low-income households. The CPI-All Items Inflation for the lowest 20 percentile and the middle 60% income groups came at 4.9% and 5.6% year-on-year respectively, compared to 5.9% year-on year for the highest 20% income group. So, it is less for the lower-income group.

Nonetheless, we are also aware that this same level of inflation can have a more adverse impact on lower-income households. I think both Minister Tan See Leng as well as Minister of State Chee Hong Tat have already explained as per in my reply how we are particularly helping the lower-income group through higher payouts, for example, in the Assurance Packages and the Good and Services Tax (GST) Voucher schemes. Also, as Minister of State Chee mentioned earlier, the Government will look at ways to further help Singaporeans, if necessary.

With regard to the energy prices, global demand for oil is expected to moderate, given the ongoing global economic slowdown and also China's slower than expected economic recovery. But despite coming off their peaks last year, global oil prices are expected to remain elevated in 2023 because of tightened supply constraints.

All in all, what the Government is doing is also on the fiscal stance but on the monetary policy stance. And it is for MAS to continue the current stance of appreciating the Singapore dollar to dampen imported inflation. In fact, MAS will review this stance in the next monetary policy meeting in October.

20 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporeans under the age of 35 are living with or have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder within the last three years; and (b) what avenues of appeal and assistance are available to young Singaporeans who encounter stigma from insurers or are declined insurance coverage due to their mental health condition, including bipolar disorder.

21 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) what avenues are available to patients who are unable to obtain medical insurance coverage as a result of their mental health condition; (b) whether the Ministry is considering a regulatory approach to address this concern; and (c) if so, what are the measures being considered.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 20 and 21 on today’s Order Paper?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Sir. My response will also cover the matters raised in the written Question No 24 by Dr Tan Wu Meng in today's Order Paper.

Sir, according to the Singapore Mental Health Survey 2016, 2.8% of Singapore residents aged 18 to 34 years had bipolar disorder. The proportion with active symptoms was lower, at 2.1%.

Members raised concerns about individuals being denied health insurance coverage due to their mental health conditions. This is a valid concern and should be considered within the larger context of our S+3M healthcare safety net system.

All Singaporeans are eligible for healthcare subsidies of up to 80% in public healthcare institutions. All Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are also covered under MediShield Life (MSHL), regardless of pre-existing conditions, including mental health conditions. MSHL is sized to cover nine in 10 bills in the subsidised wards of public healthcare institutions.

Beyond subsidies and MSHL, individuals can also buy private Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) and other insurance plans. In making underwriting decisions, insurers are fully expected by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to deal fairly with their customers. For example, insurers should not indiscriminately reject an application solely on the basis of declared personal information, such as occupation, income, disability or medical condition, including mental health conditions.

Insurers should carry out an objective assessment of every application, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks being insured. Where an application is rejected or approved with higher premiums or additional conditions, insurers should properly explain to the customer the basis for the underwriting decision. MAS will take action against insurers whose practices are in breach of MAS’ regulations or guidance.

Individuals who have concerns over their insurer’s underwriting decision can make an appeal through their insurer’s feedback channel or through MAS.

Dr Tan. Please keep your supplementary question short. We want to allow Ms He to also ask her supplementary question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I ask the Minister if he would consider one suggestion? Would MOH look into setting up a website portal so that members of the public can provide authenticated experiences of their dealings with insurance companies, including when the company is unreasonable in refusing to provide insurance coverage, such as in the case of the person, a member of the public, Tan Hui In, who, in The Straits Times Forum in July, mentioned how their daughter had bipolar disorder but got turned away by two large insurance companies? Mr Speaker, can I ask the Minister to consider this because such a platform will help the public see better which firms are kind or which firms might be considered "one kind"?

Sir, I thank Dr Tan for his suggestions. Firstly, a website or a social media page portal does not need MOH to set it up. These are experiences that the public can, indeed, share. But I think the larger point is, perhaps, should we take into account complaints or concerns expressed by members of the public and how they have been dealt with by their insurance companies and use that in some way to inform the public. But it is a good suggestion. I will take it back to my colleagues in MOH and we will study to see how this can be used to improve conditions for all the insured.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply earlier. I have two supplementary questions.

First, I noticed that the Senior Minister of State quoted data from the 2016 Mental Health Survey that was conducted. I am wondering whether a more up-to-date survey is in the works, given that with increased awareness and after COVID-19, we could actually see a difference in the number of individuals who are diagnosed with mental health conditions and illnesses.

Second, does the Ministry consider these issues about ostensible denial of insurance coverage? Does the Minister consider this to be a problem or is the Ministry working with MAS at the moment to study whether this is an issue and how many individuals this might actually be affecting and whether or not further remedial action needs to be taken to make sure that insurers are not discriminating against these individuals?

Sir, I thank Ms He for the questions. The short answer to both questions is yes. There will be further surveys and studies conducted and released, and MOH and MAS do continue to work together to see how we can appropriately regulate and guide the insurance industry to be able to provide these products in order to appropriately protect the public.

Order. End of Question Time. Business Motions. Leader of the House.

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

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That, pursuant to Standing Order 10(2), the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill by Ms Hazel Poa be taken immediately after the proceedings on the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' have been concluded."

Mr Speaker, as Members are aware, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), Ms Hazel Poa, has filed two Motions. In her first Motion titled "Suspension of Member", she is moving to suspend Minister Iswaran from service of Parliament with the consequence that no Member of Parliament (MP) allowance shall be paid to him for the period of suspension.

Her second Motion is for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act of 1962, or the PPIPA. Specifically, she is seeking to amend the Act to allow Parliament to back pay Mr Iswaran should he be subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing and resume his official duties. This being an amendment of a Bill by a Private Member, leave of Parliament to introduce the Bill is necessary under Standing Order 66(1).

I have separately filed a Motion titled "Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament" which deals with Members' standard of conduct, calls for firm and fair dealings with Members under investigation for wrongdoing and proposes that the matters relating to Mr Iswaran be considered when the outcome of the investigation is known.

All three Motions are scheduled to be dealt with today.

In the normal Order of Business, under the Standing Orders, Motions for leave to introduce Bills would be dealt with before Motions on matters to be debated.

In this case, however, the question of whether there is a need to amend the PPIPA to allow Parliament to back pay Mr Iswaran will depend on whether or not Parliament resolves to suspend him in the first place. This, in turn, will depend on the outcome of my Motion and Ms Poa's other Motion, which I will be asking to be debated simultaneously.

I am, therefore, moving to revise the Order of Business such that Ms Poa's Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the PPIPA will be taken immediately after the proceedings on my Motion and Ms Poa's other Motion have concluded. This would be a more logical flow and allow for more efficient conduct of parliamentary business. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That, pursuant to Standing Order 10(2), the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill by Ms Hazel Poa be taken immediately after the proceedings on the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' have been concluded." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]

Leader.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion."

Mr Speaker, as mentioned earlier, these two Motions deal with the same topic insofar as Mr Iswaran is concerned. I am thus moving this Business Motion for a simultaneous debate on the two Motions, so that Members can address both Motions in a single speech. This will allow the issues raised in the two Motions to be considered holistically.

To be clear and for avoidance of doubt, it is only the debate that is to be concurrent. The Motions remain as two separate Motions. And at the end of the debate, the votes on the two Motions will be taken separately. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion." – [Ms Indranee Rajah].

Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions.

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [18 September 2023], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Social and Family Development]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Shawn Hwang.

Mr Speaker, our family dynamics is evolving. Parenting today is a shared responsibility between mothers and fathers. Fathers today are eager to take an active role in parenting and we should support this.

According to a McKinsey study on paternity leave, 100% of fathers surveyed expressed that they were glad that they took paternity leave and would do so again; and 90% of fathers noticed an improvement in their relationship with their partners.

In many countries, the views on paternity leave are changing as well. According to a study by the World Economic Forum, more countries and companies are offering paternity leave benefits to new fathers. Worldwide, 90 out of 187 countries offer statutory paid paternity leave, with four in 10 organisations providing paid leave above the statutory minimum. In OECD countries, men's use of parental leave is increasing overall, even though the number of days taken is still fairly minimal. This is a good trend.

Increasing paternity leave is an unequivocal endorsement that fathers play an important role in the family on the arrival of a newborn. Fathers should be given adequate time to bond with their newborns or adopted children. More can be done.

In Sweden new parents are entitled to 480 days of leave at 80% of their normal pay. In Estonia, after the end of maternity leave, parents get an additional 435 days off, with compensation calculated at the average of both earnings. In Slovenia, fathers have a guaranteed 90 days of paternity leave, with the first 15 days at 100% while the remaining 75 are paid at minimum wage.

According to the World Economic Forum, numerous studies have shown that policies promoting father's involvement at home is good for the economy, gender equality and families. Other studies have also shown that active fatherhood is also good for the men's own health and well-being as well as their relationship with the partners. Research shows that when men are more involved in the early care of a child, they are more likely to remain connected to that child and to carry out a more equitable amount of care work.

This Bill is a good step forward, but our work does not end here. Let us continue to take more progressive steps to be a more equitable and compassionate society where we give our families and children the best possible outcomes. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill is a testament to our nation's commitment to supporting families, recognising the shared responsibilities of parents and ensuring the well-being of our children.

The doubling of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two weeks to four is not just a commendable move; it is transformative.

As a father of four, I remember the joyous yet challenging sleepless nights when my children were born. Those initial weeks were a blur of diaper changes and feeding schedules. Having an extra two weeks would have made a whole world of difference in sharing the load with my wife and bonding with my newborn.

Sir, the introduction of the Shared Parental Leave, allowing parents to share eight weeks of maternity leave, is a progressive step. It promotes flexibility and choice, allowing families to decide what arrangement works best for them.

By providing additional paternity leave, we are, too, acknowledging the importance of mental well-being of both parents. Shared responsibilities can alleviate postpartum stress and anxiety, ensuring a healthy mental space for parents.

I recently spoke to a couple who were both working professionals. The wife, unfortunately, suffered from postpartum depression that lasted a few months and the husband felt really helpless during that period. His leave was exhausted and he had to return to work. This extension of paternity leave would have allowed him to be there for his wife and the newborn in such a critical period.

Sir, while I support this Bill wholeheartedly, I also recognise that there are some concerns.

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) might be concerned about the operational challenges posed by extended leave periods. I spoke to an SME owner who questioned the possible productivity loss during extended leave periods. While he supports the idea of paternity leave, he was concerned about the short-term impact on his business. And while the Government's commitment to reimburse wage costs is reassuring, the potential disruption to business operations is a valid concern. I urge the Ministry to consider additional support measures for SMEs, perhaps in the form of temporary manpower assistance or even further training to ensure smooth business operations in such times. Perhaps, the Ministry could also carry out a comprehensive review to gauge the long-term effects on SMEs.

Sir, with increased flexibility, there might be concerns about the potential misuse of these leaves. I have heard that there should be checks in place to prevent any potential misuse. While the term "potential for misuse" often come up in discussions about increased flexibility leave policies, I want to challenge that notion.

In my interactions with constituents and even within my own circle of family and friends, I have found that the overwhelming majority are responsible and would not misuse such a vital support system. I believe that the key to the success of policies like this is trust – trust in our citizens to use these leaves for the intended purpose of nurturing their families.

So, in that regard, I urge companies, rather than implementing checks that could deter people from taking leave and perpetuate stigma, we should focus on fostering a culture of responsibility and integrity. In fact, the more we trust one another, the more we empower them to make ethical choices. These, in turn, strengthen our social fabric and make policies like this more effective in the long run. While it is natural to have concerns about potential misuse, let us not let these concerns overshadow the larger goal here to support and nurture Singaporean families. Trust begets trust and it is time we place ours in our people.

Sir, while the Bill provides for these leaves, there might still be a societal stigma attached to fathers taking extended leave and we must ensure that there is a robust public awareness campaign to normalise this and emphasise the importance of shared responsibilities.

The real question is – are we doing enough to foster a society where employers genuinely value and support the family commitments of the employees? In that regard, could the Ministry share on their efforts to apply, educate and promote the benefits of shared of parental responsibilities and, in the bigger picture, the shared notion of a Singapore Made for Families?

Sir, the gig economy is growing and many of our citizens work in non-traditional employment structures. It is crucial to ensure that they, too, can benefit from these provisions. So, I urge the Ministry to consider how these benefits can be extended to all working parents, regardless of their employment nature. Are there plans to pilot a programme or study to assess the best ways to extend these benefits to such workers? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I support the amendments to this Act. This amendment is not just a piece of legislature, but it is also a reflection of our values, aspirations, and commitment to the future of families in Singapore.

Firstly, the extension of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two weeks to four is a commendable move. This allows fathers to play a more active role in the early stages of their child's life and also underscores the importance of shared parental responsibilities. Furthermore, the introduction of the Shared Parental Leave, allowing parents to share up to eight weeks of maternity leave, is a progressive step. It provides flexibility and choice, allowing families to decide what arrangement works best for them.

I am aware that stigma towards utilising family leave is present in our society. Therefore, we must ensure that we have a public awareness campaign to emphasise the importance of shared responsibility.

In conclusion, this amendment is a significant step forward in our commitment to supporting families. It recognises the needs of modern families that is constantly evolving and provides the much-needed support. But in line with this progress, let us remember that policies alone are not enough. We need a paradigm shift in our societal values, where we give priority to holistic development and foster a strong sense of community.

(In English): Sir, in conclusion, this Bill is a significant step forward in our commitment to supporting families. It recognises the evolving needs of modern families and provides the necessary support. This Bill is not just a piece of legislation. It is a reflection of our values, our aspirations and our commitment to our future.

But as we move forward, let us remember that policies alone are not enough. We need a paradigm shift in our societal values where we prioritise holistic development and foster a strong sense of community.

While we must address the concerns raised, they should not deter us from the primary objective of this Bill – to support and nurture Singaporean families. I commend the Ministry for introducing this Bill and hope to see its successful implementation, ensuring a more supportive future for all Singaporeans.

Mr Don Wee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which will assist and support couples in raising children. The amendments will help them to better balance their work responsibilities and the critical task of bringing up the next generation.

One of the most noteworthy provisions of this Bill is the expansion of parental leave options.

The Bill proposes to increase Unpaid Infant Care Leave for Singaporean parents with infants under two years old by six days per parent per year for the first two years, with amendments requiring companies to offer this additional time off to all qualified Singaporean parents who have worked for at least three months.

Longer parental leave periods not only foster stronger parent-child bonds but also contribute to healthier emotional development in children. By extending the duration of paid leave, we empower parents to be present during those crucial early stages of their child's life.

Furthermore, this Bill addresses the need for fathers to be more involved in the care and nurturing of their children. Research has shown that the greater involvement of fathers is beneficial for children, contributing positively to their children's physical and cognitive developments.

The enhancement of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Benefit schemes are much welcomed. More shared parental responsibilities will also support mothers who need to juggle work and household tasks in addition to childcare.

I urge the Ministry to continue to study the effects of these policy reforms on child development, parental well-being and worker productivity. This information will be used to drive future legislative changes. For more effective implementation, tighter and more comprehensive collaboration amongst Government agencies, educational institutions and the commercial sector is needed in order to develop a complete support network for families.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Ministry to launch a public awareness campaign to enlighten parents about their rights and advantages with this Bill, ensuring that all eligible families may benefit from its provisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Lastly, like what Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Mark Lee mentioned yesterday, we need to be mindful of the challenges that SMEs face when dealing with additional parental leave even if it is unpaid leave. These challenges include staffing gaps, business continuity issues and increased operational costs.

SMEs often operate with smaller workforces compared with larger corporations. When employees take extended paternity leave or additional Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL), it can result in significant staffing gaps.

Relative to large corporations, SMEs are more vulnerable to the impact of employee absenteeism. The absence of even one key employee can disrupt the day-to-day operations and put added pressure on the remaining staff.

To manage staffing gaps during extended leaves, SMEs may need to hire part-time or temporary staff. This can lead to increased operational expenses, which can be especially strenuous in sectors like retail and F&B, where staffing needs are often instantaneous. The cost of recruiting, training and paying temporary staff can strain the SME's cashflow momentarily. Can the relevant Ministry explore the possibility of reimbursing and recognising these SMEs which are supportive towards their employees?

Minister of State, Ms Sun Xueling.

Sir, I thank Members for their general support for the Bill. I am heartened that most of us agree that a collective, whole-of-society effort is needed to build a conducive environment that values and supports families on their parenthood journey.

Let me now respond to the questions and suggestions that Members have raised.

Mr Shawn Huang has shared in his speech that the use of paternity leave among the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries is increasing overall. We have observed a similar trend in Singapore.

To Mr Desmond Choo and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's question, since the introduction of Government-Paid Paternity Leave, take-up rates have increased from about 25% in 2013 to 53% in 2021.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked if there is research on the role taken by those fathers who utilise their paternity leave entitlements. From the Marriage and Parenthood Survey 2021, 97% of the married respondents agreed that paternity leave allowed fathers to play a bigger role in their newborn's life. Our research also showed that fathers found paternity leave useful to support their wives after birth and to settle into the role of fatherhood.

To Ms He Ting Ru's question, we do survey the reasons why fathers do not fully consume their paternity leave. A key factor affecting fathers' utilisation of paternity leave is workplace support. This includes whether supervisors are adequately assuring that using paternity leave will not affect fathers' career prospects and that colleagues are willing to cover the fathers' duties in their absence. We will continue to explore ways to encourage employers to support all fathers to use their paternity leave such as by raising awareness of the benefits of providing a family-friendly workplace culture.

Ms He Ting Ru also expressed concern on the gap in support for self-employed fathers and those without full-time employment. Ms See Jinli Jean further asked if the Government can consider providing paid paternity leave for the full four-week period of lost income to a self-employed father who stopped working for seven days a week for four weeks.

The weekly index of six days takes reference from the Employment Act, which stipulates one rest day per week. This makes for a common base of reference to employees who receive Government-Paid Paternity Leave. For fathers who are not eligible for Government-Paid Paternity Leave, such as those on short-term contracts, they may receive the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit, which is a comparable cash benefit in lieu of the paternity leave.

Mr Desmond Choo asked if we could allow parents to use Unpaid Infant Care Leave flexibly during the child's first two years and whether the number of leave days can be increased based on the number of children. I would like to clarify that parents can take 12 days of Unpaid Infant Care Leave flexibly as agreed with their employers during the initial 12-month period, following which they will be entitled to another 12 days of Unpaid Infant Care Leave in the second 12-month period in which the child remains under two years old. Employees may discuss their leave plans with their employers to see how best to meet their needs.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked if childcare leave can be increased. I think many of us as employees would like childcare leave to be increased. I fully empathise with the challenges Ms Mariam Jaafar had shared that her residents face.

The difficulty is not so much the cost to Government but rather the difficulties faced by employers and businesses who are impacted when leave is made compulsory. Already, based on the current set of proposals to increase Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) and Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL), Members in this House have highlighted concerns from employers that the increased leave provisions will adversely impact their manpower costs and operations.

Mr Mark Lee in his speech yesterday said, "the introduction of GPPL and UICL enhancements may pose significant challenges for certain businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises with streamlined workforces where each employee's role is crucial to daily operations. Frontline service-oriented industries may need to recruit temporary personnel to cover for employees taking extended leaves."

Mr Yip Hon Weng also shared in his speech yesterday, I quote, "appealing for more leave is not a viable solution. As a small, competitive nation, we must weigh these advancements against its potential effects on businesses, ensuring a balanced approach. We must vigilantly track the impact of these policies to discern whether they truly move the needle in the desired direction."

These seemingly divergent views show that we need to strike a practical balance between supporting parents in their caregiving responsibilities and meeting employers' manpower needs. Our leave provisions need to take into account not only the roles of parents as caregivers but also the roles parents play in workplaces as employees.

I understand that parents with more children will require more leave to take care of their children, should they fall ill.

Currently, the Civil Service provides childcare sick leave on a per child basis. Based on the latest available survey data from 2020, 27% of private companies voluntarily provided additional paid childcare sick leave to employees.

I would like to encourage private sector employers to consider providing childcare sick leave, which is available in the Public Sector on a per child basis. This can greatly alleviate parental stress from taking care of more children.

To Ms Mariam Jaafar's suggestion, we will look at means, such as surveys, to gauge the take-up rate of UICL.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked for the equalisation of parental leave. Mr Melvin Yong asked the Ministry to consider providing adoptive and foster parents with more GPPL and UICL.

Let me clarify that the current leave provisions are differentiated to meet the needs of the respective parents. Maternity leave is provided for mothers to recuperate physically from childbirth and care for and bond with their newborn. Hence, it is longer than paternity leave, which allows for fathers to care for their wives and bond with their newborn child. This is also why maternity leave is longer than adoption leave.

Couples who wish to have the father spend more time with their newborns can have the father tap on Shared Parental Leave for up to four weeks from their wife's Government-Paid Maternity Leave or Adoption Leave.

To Ms Hany Soh's query, we currently do not intend to change the Shared Parental Leave provision under this Bill.

I would like to assure Members that the Government is on the same page as Members in wanting to encourage shared parenting. This is why beyond the minimal stipulations for maternity leave and paternity leave, any additional leave that the Government may consider in future will likely be of a shared nature, as per our move on shared parental leave in 2013.

On fostering, unlike adoption, fostering is a temporary care arrangement. Hence, foster parents are not eligible for Government-Paid Maternity or Paternity Leave. However, they are entitled to the same quantum of childcare leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave as biological or adoptive parents.

To better support adoptive and foster parents, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and our community partners offer a range of services to meet their needs. All new foster parents are also trained by the Social Service Institute to care for foster children and can receive advice from more experienced foster parents through peer support networks. To defray the costs of caring for a foster child, MSF provides a monthly fostering allowance as well as childcare and medical subsidies for the foster children.

Mr Desmond Choo expressed concern that some self-employed fathers may not qualify for GPPL if they take time off from work to support their wives in the pre-delivery phase. Let me clarify that in such cases, self-employed fathers remain eligible for the Government-Paid Paternity Leave as long as they have been carrying on their trade, business, profession or vocation for a continuous period of at least three months prior to the childbirth. They will not be disqualified simply because they took some time off work during this period.

Ms See Jinli Jean has asked the Government to consider disbursing a self-employed person’s claim for lost income at the start of his or her leave period rather than after it has concluded. I wish to clarify that claims for leave or income lost are processed on a reimbursement basis to ensure that the leave has been taken as intended first before payment is made. This also helps with the computation of the actual amount of income lost to be reimbursed, which would not be possible to ascertain until the leave has been taken.

Ms Hany Soh asked if flexibility could be exercised to allow expectant mothers to consume their maternity leave earlier in their final trimester. The primary intent of maternity leave is to provide mothers with time to recover from childbirth and to care for their newborns. We allow flexibility for mothers to start their maternity leave earlier, up to 28 days before delivery, but the bulk of their maternity leave should still be used for post-confinement. Expectant mothers who need to absent themselves from work earlier than 28 days before can tap on their sick leave or hospitalisation leave if they feel unwell, for example, if they suffer from severe nausea in the first trimester.

Members such as Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Don Wee and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum have asked about the Government’s efforts in encouraging fathers to utilise paternity leave as well as to normalise paternity leave and the importance of shared parental responsibilities.

As Ms Yeo Wan Ling has stated, societal norms must be considered in the discussion of encouraging take-up of parental leave. It is important that the society adopts a mindset that embraces paternal involvement from the onset. To promote active fatherhood and the importance of shared parental responsibilities, we have been working with community partners such as the Families for Life Council and the Centre for Fathering on three key family movements in Singapore – the Families for Life, Dads for Life and Mums for Life movements. These movements look at strengthening family ties and resilience with the aim of increasing marriage stability as well as advocating the importance of shared parenting and household responsibilities between mothers and fathers. For example, the Centre for Fathering runs several campaigns throughout the year to reinforce and signal the importance of fathers’ active involvement in their child’s development. One of the campaigns is the Great Companies for Dads Awards, which engages and recognises companies that nurture a family-friendly work culture through their policies and initiatives.

The attitudes and mindsets of supervisors and colleagues also make a big difference in helping fathers feel assured that they are not being discriminated for using their leave. We also hope to encourage self-employed persons to recognise the benefits of parental leave and how the Government tries to support them through the provision of Government-paid paternity benefits and Government-Paid Paternity and Maternity Leave. To Ms Hany Soh’s questions, we had indeed sought employers’ views and feedback on the leave enhancements through our consultations with the tripartite partners.

We will continue working with our tripartite partners to encourage employers to foster family-friendly workplace cultures that will better support parents in managing their work and family responsibilities. We also encourage employers to be supportive and understanding when fathers take paternity leave. This would help employees be more motivated, like what Ms Yeo Wan Ling has shared. In the long run, progressive employers can stand to benefit from better talent attraction and retention.

To Mr Melvin Yong's suggestion to conduct a local study to examine companies that offer the best work-life balance, we will look at best practices today to identify what other companies can adopt.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether gig workers would benefit from the increase in Government-Paid Paternity Leave, and if not, what support is available to compensate them. Dr Wan Rizal stated that it is crucial to ensure gig workers can also benefit from these leave provisions. I would like to clarify that working parents who do not qualify for Government-paid leave schemes due to their employment arrangements, such as those on short-term contracts and gig workers, may be eligible for equivalent parenthood benefits in the form of Government-paid benefit schemes – that is the intent of Government-paid paternity benefit and Government-paid maternity benefit. These are cash benefits granted in lieu of the Government-paid portion of paid leave.

Mr Don Wee suggested launching a public awareness campaign so that more parents are aware of their leave entitlements. Mr Desmond Choo also asked if the Government could broaden its work with the trade associations and chambers (TACs) and the Labour Movement to spread awareness of the enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Leave, especially among the self-employed.

We thank Members for the suggestions. The Government will work closely with our tripartite partners to raise awareness of these benefits among employees and the self-employed, including gig workers, to encourage them to utilise their leave or benefits. For example, we have developed an infographic and produced a video on parental leave targeted at raising awareness among self-employed persons. The infographic was disseminated through our tripartite partners’ networks. We will continue to build on these efforts and look for ways to further raise awareness and encourage parents to utilise their leave benefits.

Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Don Wee asked if we will consider conducting a review to assess the impact of leave enhancements. As Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Usha Chandradas have said, it is a continuous process to review our policies to meet the evolving needs of parents and to make our society more family friendly. We will monitor the impact of our leave enhancements.

Mr Mark Lee suggested revising the reimbursement schedule of the Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Paternity Leave to more frequent intervals to alleviate cash flow strain on SMEs. I would like to clarify that claims for reimbursement can be submitted for any part of the Government-Paid portion of the leave that has been taken and are not restricted to only after the last day of leave has been fully utilised. This applies to self-employed persons too.

We recognise that some employers may have concerns with parents taking additional parental leave due to the nature of the work and challenge of finding covering arrangements. Mr Don Wee, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal have highlighted that companies, especially SMEs who have fewer employees, may face operational challenges, and have suggested providing additional support for them. We have introduced the additional two weeks of Government-Paid Paternity Leave on a voluntary basis, so that employers have some time to make adjustments according to their manpower and operational needs. We intend to make this provision mandatory in due course and we will be conducting the necessary stakeholder consultations with tripartite partners before any such move.

In the meantime, employers and employees may exercise flexibility in the parents’ utilisation of parental leave, such as by taking the leave in more than one period within their child’s first year, to minimise disruptions to business operations. Parents should also play their part by discussing their leave arrangements with their employers in advance, so that their employers can plan for the necessary covering arrangements and any additional resources that they may require. I also thank Mr Desmond Choo for sharing that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) is ready to help our SMEs to develop policies that will better support parents.

Another important strategy for companies to build agility in manpower needs is through the adoption of flexible workplace arrangements (FWAs). As mentioned by Ms Yeo Wan Ling, FWAs are more sustainable options and can benefit not just parents of young children but also other caregivers. When implemented well, FWAs can increase productivity, lower absenteeism and turnover, which in turn can help companies mitigate the effects of manpower constraints.

Mr Melvin Yong suggested expanding the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) to provide incentives to employers who provide good FWAs to employees with children. We review the scope of the CDCA periodically to best serve the needs of parents. For FWAs however, they benefit not just parents but also caregivers of other familial members. As such, incentivising FWAs may take other forms other than through amending the CDCA.

We share Members’ views on the importance of having FWAs. And the Government is on the lookout for positive examples of such companies to share with others at opportune times. We take heart that some companies have already walked this path and found success.

Take, for example, 1AND8 Singapore Pte Ltd, the company behind the Museum of Ice Cream. They have adopted the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements and allow their staff to fully telecommute, only returning to the office for physical meetings when required. The company also practises staggered hours and has part-time work available for their frontline Guest Specialist Experience positions. This approach has helped the company to boost work productivity while also enabling their employees to achieve a better work-life balance, leading to increased job satisfaction and higher morale. The positive outcomes are evident in their employees staying with them for extended periods, contributing to a lower turnover rate.

Mr Mark Lee suggested establishing a comprehensive framework to recognise companies that support national-level initiatives such as the Tripartite Standard and progressive wages. Today, companies that adopt the Tripartite Standards will be profiled with the TS logo on MyCareersFuture job portal. This allows them to gain greater visibility in talent recruitment. Companies who pay their lower-wage workers progressive wages can also adopt the Progressive Wage Mark to profile themselves as responsible employers that support the uplifting of lower-wage workers. This can encourage consumers and service buyers to prioritise purchases from them.

I will now address comments raised by Members about extending support to caregivers of other dependants.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the different leave schemes could be amalgamated into a family care leave scheme to provide flexibility for parents and caregivers. Today, the leave schemes are differentiated to cater to the needs of different caregivers. They are also calibrated to balance between employees’ caregiving needs and employers’ business costs and manpower needs.

Ms Usha Chandradas, Ms See Jinli Jean and Mr Desmond Choo have also called for more support for familial caregivers. Today’s Bill is on the CDCA and so we are discussing maternity and paternity leave and benefits.

On the broader topic of support for caregivers for the elderly, I would like to assure Members that your feedback will be provided to the agencies looking into this topic. Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is important that we bring all stakeholders including employers to build a family-friendly work environment, so that caregivers can better manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities.

On the Child Development Account (CDA), Ms Hany Soh has asked for greater flexibility on how funds can be utilised. I thank her for her feedback. The range of approved CDA usages is circumscribed to ensure that the funds are well-utilised to the benefit of the child. Nonetheless, we do regularly review the CDA scheme, together with our suite of marriage and parenthood policies. Over the years, we have enhanced the CDA scheme to provide more support to parents. For example, we have increased the Government co-matching contributions and also introduced the CDA First Step Grant. We have also expanded the areas where the CDA funds can be used and will continue to review how this can be further refined.

Mr Ong Hua Han asked if the CDA co-matching or the CDA First Step Grant could be increased to better support children with disabilities to cope with the cost of living. These schemes are designed on a broad basis to support all parents in raising their children. We fully recognise that families caring for children with special needs face more financial challenges. Hence, the Government provides funding support and means-tested subsidies for children enrolled in early intervention programmes, Special Education (SPED) schools and Special Student Care Centres (SSCCs) to keep fees affordable for families with children with special needs.

The Government is also working to expand places in early intervention services, SPED schools and SSCCs to ensure that children with special needs can access an education that develops their potential and equips them with knowledge and skills to participate meaningfully in society.

Mr Ong Hua Han also asked if the income threshold of means-tested schemes such as the Assistive Technology Fund and Enabling Transport Subsidy can be revised to align with the median household per capita income. He suggested factoring in actual costs borne by families as part of the means-testing calculations.

I thank the Member for his suggestions to help families with children who have special needs. MSF regularly reviews the income thresholds for such schemes to ensure that households receive the help that they need and we will take in his inputs when reviewing all these schemes.

We recognise the critical role that caregivers play in caring for their loved ones with special needs and the importance of supporting families with persons with disabilities. Support for caregivers is indeed crucial to the children's well-being and development. Our support for caregivers is thus multifaceted.

Early intervention centres provide caregiver engagement and training so that caregivers are equipped with the skills and knowledge to support their children at home. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has also started the Inclusive Support Preschool pilot to integrate early childhood and early intervention support for children with developmental needs within a preschool setting to provide a more inclusive learning experience and reduce the need for caregivers and children to shuttle between preschools and Early Intervention (EI) centres.

We continue to improve access to knowledge and skills for parents with special needs children to carry out their caregiving duties and connect them with support networks.

For example, ECDA launched a Parents' Guide last year to provide parents with information on ways to access EI services, support available to facilitate the child's transition from the preschool years to school-age provisions, as well as self-care strategies and resources. SG Enable has also worked with CaringSG, a caregiver-led organisation, to launch the Step One programme in July 2023.

Mr Louis Ng asked for the equalisation of benefits to single unwed parents, starting with the extension of the cash component of the Baby Bonus scheme. I thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. Many of the existing benefits are already equalised. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, infant care and childcare, the foreign domestic worker levy concession as well as CDA benefits. Rather than see the Baby Bonus cash gift as discriminatory to single unwed parents, it should be seen as a separate benefit to specifically promote parenthood within marriage. Hence, it is extended only to married parents.

I fully empathise with the challenges faced by single unwed parents, in particular, those who are lower-income. I would like to assure Members that additional help is available for them. Currently, single unwed parents requiring support with their basic living expenses can approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs). Our SSOs will assess their households' needs and circumstances and provide ComCare financial assistance if they meet the criteria. Our SSOs may also refer them to other Government agencies and community partners for further support.

Family Service Centres also work with single unwed parents and their children to address their social and emotional needs, not forgetting that there are bottom-up initiatives such as the Northeast Community Development Council's "North East Growth Fund", which provide subsidies for formula milk and diapers to young children up to six years old so as to support new mothers.

Let me now turn to issues relating to implementation and governance.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal have raised concerns about potential misuse of parental leave. These are valid concerns as the annual commitment for the enhancements to Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Benefit amounts to about $57 million.

MSF has measures in place to verify the authenticity of parental leave claims. Claim information that cannot be validated against Government data will be verified by our processing officers against supporting documents. In addition, disbursed claims will be selectively reviewed to detect erroneous payments to employers, employees and self-employed persons.

If any erroneous payment is identified and verified to have taken place, the CDCA grants the Government powers to recover such monies from employers, employees and self-employed persons, as the case may be. We will undertake the recovery of such monies in a timely manner.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked several questions regarding Approved Persons. The primary role of the Approved Person is to oversee the withdrawal of CDA funds in respect of an Approved Institution. Approved Persons must be able to fulfil their roles and responsibilities specified in the Child Development Co-Savings Regulations as well as MSF's Terms and Conditions for Approved Persons and Approved Institutions.

For those who have not been proper in carrying out their role as an Approved Person, MSF will suspend their approval. The suspension safeguards the child's CDA funds but does not mean that the relevant Approved Institution has to cease service provision for the child. For instance, a preschool can continue its delivery of services as long as it remains licensed by ECDA. In the past three years, one Approved Person has been suspended due to their failure to keep proper records.

The amendments to section 7 provide for a simplified process wherein revocation of the approval granted to these Approved Persons does not need to be approved by the Minister. This would be applied in specific situations that can be determined objectively, such as where the Approved Institution is no longer able to provide services because it has ceased operations. This serves to improve operational efficiency.

I hope these clarification address Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's questions.

Sir, let me now conclude. The amendments being made to the Child Development Co-Savings Act via this Bill is a clear signal of the Government's continued commitment to increase our support for parents in managing their work and family commitments. We will continue to do our best to provide such assurance to Singaporeans who are planning to embark on their parenthood journey.

At the same time, we are fully aware that schemes and subsidies alone are insufficient. At the broader level, we must strive to nurture a society that embraces family and is family-friendly. Every one of us has a part to play in building a Singapore Made for Families, where families are valued and supported. With that, Sir, I beg to move.

Any clarifications for Minister of State Sun Xueling? I do not see any hands.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(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. – [Ms Sun Xueling]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.

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

Ms Joan Pereira.

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

Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Society of Saint Maur Incorporation Ordinance 1923. The Ordinance was enacted in 1923 to incorporate The Lady Superior in Penang of the Society of Saint Maur and her successors as a corporation sole, to allow for perpetual succession under the name, “The Lady Superior of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus in Penang”. The Society of Saint Maur is more commonly known as the Infant Jesus Sisters, or IJ Sisters, in Singapore.

The order arose in response to the dire need in those days to provide young girls, especially those from disadvantaged families, with a good education. Arising from this mission, the IJ Sisters arrived in Singapore in 1854 and went on to found 11 Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus schools for girls in Singapore as well as an orphanage, home and children’s centre. They also provide after-school care for children. Over 169 years of history in Singapore, scores of girls have had their lives transformed through the work of the IJ Sisters.

As a former IJ girl, it is my privilege to move this Bill. The IJ Sisters approached me to represent them. And we have worked closely to ensure that the Ordinance will be current and relevant to their needs.

The Bill updates the name references in the Ordinance, given historical developments and current conventions. Following Singapore’s Independence in 1965, and the eventual reorganisation of the IJ Sisters, the IJ Sisters now have a Lady Superior in Singapore and a Lady Superior in Malaysia. The amendment gives recognition to this independence and allows the IJ Sisters in Singapore to grow with its own distinct identity.

The reference to “Penang” in the corporation’s name will thus be removed. The Bill also makes further amendments so that the references to the “Lady Superior in Penang of the Society of Saint Maur” in the Ordinance refer to the Lady Superior who is appointed for Singapore and not any other successor of the Lady Superior.

The Bill also removes the Schedules as they are spent; they contain listings of properties that were vested in the corporation by sections 6 and 7 of the Ordinance in 1923. The properties in Malaysia listed under the First and Third Schedules are not under the Society of Saint Maur in Singapore, and the property in Singapore listed under the Second Schedule is no longer owned by the corporation.

The corporation continues to own other properties in Singapore and the Bill also includes the necessary saving provision to ensure that existing property rights and any other rights and obligations will not be affected by the name change. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]

As the Bill is a Private Bill, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 87(3), the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, as the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, I beg to move, "That the Select Committee on the Society of Saint Maur Incorporation (Amendment) Bill consists of Speaker as Chairman and the following Members:

Ms He Ting Ru,

Mr Murali Pillai,

Ms Joan Pereira,

Ms Rahayu Mahzam,

Mr Alvin Tan,

Ms Jessica Tan,

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas."

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the Select Committee on the Society of Saint Maur Incorporation (Amendment) Bill consists of Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: (proc text)]

[(proc text) (1) Ms He Ting Ru, (proc text)]

[(proc text) (2) Mr Murali Pillai, (proc text)]

[(proc text) (3) Ms Joan Pereira, (proc text)]

[(proc text) (4) Ms Rahayu Mahzam, (proc text)]

[(proc text) (5) Mr Alvin Tan, (proc text)]

[(proc text) (6) Ms Jessica Tan, (proc text)]

[(proc text) (7) Mr Raj Joshua Thomas." – [Ms Joan Pereira] (proc text)]

The House had earlier resolved that this Motion and the next Motion appearing on the Order Paper will be debated jointly. In respect of speeches on these two Motions, the House should not be discussing the ongoing Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) or Police investigations of any particular Member of Parliament's (MP) personal conduct and what possible offences may have been committed.

I advise Members at the onset to exercise caution in discussing or reflecting on such matters as it could prejudice investigations or prejudge such a Member.

Pursuant to Standing Order 50(1), any discussion on the CPIB or Police investigations, and an MP’s personal conduct will be ruled as irrelevant to the subject matter under discussion and will be disallowed by me.

Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this House: (a) Affirms the need for Members of Parliament to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct themselves in accordance with the law; (b) Affirms the need to deal firmly and fairly with any Member of Parliament who is being investigated for possible wrongdoing; and (c) Resolves to consider the matter regarding Member of Parliament S Iswaran when the outcome of the ongoing investigations against him is known."

As Members are aware, Mr Iswaran, who is a Member of the West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC), is currently under investigation by the CPIB and is on leave of absence.

At the direction of the Prime Minister, he has been interdicted in his capacity as a Minister on a reduced pay of $8,500 per month, until further notice, as explained by the Prime Minister in his Ministerial Statement delivered at the last Sitting on 2 August 2023. In response to a clarification by Mr Dennis Tan as to whether the reduced pay comprised both the Minister's pay and MP allowance, the Prime Minister explained that Mr Iswaran's MP allowance was not interdicted, as unlike a Minister's pay, it was not at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister pointed out that it was a matter for Parliament and that Parliament had not done that, nor in previous cases, had it done so. Instead, what has happened is that the MP has been on leave of absence and, eventually, when the case is settled one way or another, then, consequences will follow.

I believe that it is in this context that the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Ms Hazel Poa has filed her current Motion. Indeed, in her Facebook post of 8 September 2023, Ms Poa expressly states that she filed the Motion for Parliament to suspend Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the 14th Parliament, "so that he no longer receives his MP allowance...".

In other words, Mr Speaker – or more accurately, in her own words – Ms Poa is moving a Motion to suspend Mr Iswaran solely in order to cut off his MP allowance.

Mr Speaker, this gives rise to some concern as to how this House should exercise its powers. We should make decisions on the basis of generally applicable principles and not on individual cases in isolation.

We are being asked to suspend a Member. The suspension of an MP is a serious matter. If done, it must be done in accordance with the law and on the right principles. We need to know on what basis the suspension is sought, what threshold or criterion for suspension the NCMP is relying on and what are the principles that lead Ms Poa to propose suspending Mr Iswaran at this point of time?

Ms Poa will be speaking in this debate after me and I invite Ms Poa to clarify these matters.

Mr Speaker, this House is given the privilege of regulating the conduct of its Members and when it does so, it should act on principle, rationally and fairly, and the standards we espouse should apply to all Members.

That is why I have brought the Motion in the terms set out above.

Mr Speaker, there should be no quarrel with the first limb of my Motion. As lawmakers and elected representatives of our citizens, it goes without saying that MPs should uphold the highest standards of integrity and to conduct ourselves in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, it is important to signal to Singaporeans that this is what we expect of ourselves so that they have the assurance of knowing that we are committed to this.

However, we must also be realistic and recognise that there will be occasions when Members may come under investigation for possible wrongdoing, as is currently the case. The question is, what approach this House should take when that happens.

This is dealt with in the second limb of my Motion, which asks the House to affirm that in the event an MP is investigated for possible wrongdoing, we should act in a manner that is not only firm, but also fair.

Again, I do not think that there can be any dispute on this, as a matter of principle and approach. The real question is how it is to be applied. Obviously, what is fair will depend on the individual circumstances of each case.

Ms Poa is calling for the suspension of Mr Iswaran. What is the principle that Ms Poa is advocating in calling for his suspension? Is it that he is under investigation? If so, then her proposal should cover all MPs being investigated. At the moment, there are three Members of Parliament under investigation: Mr Iswaran, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap.

Regarding Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap, Members will recall that this House had referred Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the Public Prosecutor following the outcome of the Committee of Privileges' inquiry into the complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan. Notwithstanding that they are under investigation, they have not been suspended.

Is Ms Poa calling for their suspension as well? If not, then why not?

This brings us to the third limb of my Motion, which is what we should do with respect to Mr Iswaran at this point in time.

All we know at this point in time is that Mr Iswaran is under investigation by CPIB under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, we do not know the facts or what specifically he is being investigated for. The outcome of the investigation is not yet known. We simply do not have sufficient material to make an informed decision at the present time.

As such, Mr Speaker, it is premature to take any action with regard to Mr Iswaran at this stage and doing so would be to prejudge the outcome of the investigation. It would be better to wait for the outcome of the investigation before deciding what to do. That would put us in a better position to assess the right and fair course of action.

Mr Speaker, at the end of the day, it is important that we deal with situations like these objectively and dispassionately. We should not attempt to exploit such situations for political ends, but rather to do the right thing at the right time.

The People's Action Party (PAP) has been very strict with its MPs and Ministers and will continue to be. I hope Opposition parties will uphold equally high standards – not just in words, but also in deeds. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

In accordance with the decision of this House to take this Motion together with the next Motion standing in the name of Ms Hazel Poa, I will now call on Ms Poa to move her Motion and make her opening speech before allowing Members to debate on both Motions. Ms Hazel Poa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House suspends Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the 14th Parliament."

[(proc text) * The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai. (proc text)]

As the House has passed a Business Motion to rearrange business such that my Motion for leave to bring in a Private Member's Bill will be taken after the simultaneous debate on my Motion and the Motion by the Leader of the House, I would like to first provide some background on the Motion statement as it appears today as well as my Private Member's Bill.

We had originally wanted the Motion statement to state that the suspension would be: (a) until Minister Iswaran has been cleared of all wrongdoing and he is able to resume duties or (b) until the end of the current session of the 14th Parliament, whichever is earlier.

We were, however, advised by Parliamentary staff that the first condition is not sufficiently definite and thus cannot form part of the Motion statement. It was, therefore, removed.

We had also originally wanted the Motion statement to include the provision that should Minister Iswaran be cleared of all wrongdoing, the Member of Parliament's (MP) allowance not paid over the duration of the suspension should then be paid to him. We were informed that this also cannot form part of the Motion statement because, currently, the law does not allow that to be done. If we wish to back pay Minister Iswaran, legislative changes will have to be made. This is why we have also asked for leave to introduce a Bill to make that possible.

The main goal of my Private Member's Bill is to empower Parliament to authorise the back payment of the allowance of an MP who has been suspended from the service of Parliament by resolution. Thus, the Motion statement stands as it is today.

Sir, I regret the circumstances that have led us to debate this Motion. This is the first time since Independence that such a Motion has been moved in this House. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai and I have placed this Motion before the House after serious consideration. It is not a case of "Anything you can do, I can do stronger", as the Prime Minister said during the Sitting on 2 August.

Since 12 July, Minister Iswaran has been instructed by the Prime Minister to take leave of absence from his official duties until the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) completes its investigations into him.

As the Prime Minister informed this House on 2 August, while Minister Iswaran is interdicted from his Ministerial duties, he will draw a reduced pay of $8,500 per month. However, Minister Iswaran continues to draw his full MP allowance of $192,500 per year.

The Prime Minister said that it was not within his discretion to cut the MP allowance. To do that, it must be done through a Motion in Parliament to suspend the Member from the service of Parliament. Hence, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) decided to file the Motion to suspend Minister Iswaran.

How is this case different from others as to warrant a suspension?

Firstly, he is no longer performing his duties as an MP, whether in Parliament or in his constituency. The Prime Minister has made the decision to place Minister Iswaran on leave of absence in both his capacity as Minister as well as MP. While we do not have the details of the investigation that the Prime Minister is privy to, we believe the Prime Minister must have good reasons to do so. So, in effect, Minister Iswaran has been fully suspended from his MP duties, but not from his MP allowance.

Secondly, this case involves corruption, a crime we have always maintained we have zero tolerance for. We believe this merits a strong statement that reflects our values. In addition, for many years, the Government has justified the high salaries for political officeholders on the basis of ensuring that our Government remains honest and free of corruption. This is why many Singaporeans, including myself, find it difficult to accept that taxpayers' money is being used in this way.

Let us set aside this particular case involving Minister Iswaran for the time being and instead, consider a generic case of corruption.

Should we have a system that allows an outcome whereby an MP who is eventually found guilty of corruption and whose duties had been suspended can continue to receive in full his or her MP allowance over the entire duration of the investigation plus the duration of Court proceedings until he or she is finally pronounced guilty, and all avenues of appeal exhausted? Is this a good use of tax revenue? Is this not a drain on our resources? If this is not a desirable outcome, then we need to do something.

This Motion is therefore about the prudent use of taxpayers' money, not a presumption of guilt. While we do not want corrupt MPs to benefit financially, we must balance that with ensuring that innocent MPs do not have to pay a price for accusations or suspicions that are later proved unfounded.

To do that, we have two options: the first is to pay the allowance first and then claw back if found guilty; the second is to suspend the allowance and then pay back if found innocent. Both of these options are currently not legal. Existing laws do not allow any clawback of allowance nor paying back of withheld allowance. Legislative changes are necessary to adopt either one.

Under the first option of 'pay first, claw back later", a potential problem exists. After the payment of the allowance, we have no control over where the money flows. There might be difficulties later in recovering the sum of money; and time, effort and cost may be incurred in the recovery. Hence, we prefer the second option of suspend first, pay later.

It is PSP's stance that an MP or Minister who is under investigation for corruption and suspended from official duties should be put on no-pay leave until the investigation or criminal case is concluded. If the MP or Minister subsequently resumes their official duties after being cleared by the investigation or criminal case, they should be entitled to full back pay for the period during which they were on leave of absence.

The Leader of the House has also filed a Motion today. There are three parts to the Motion, which I would deal with in turn. Clause (a) of the Leader's Motion asked the House to affirm the need for MPs to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct themselves in accordance with the law.

PSP has no objection to this. We are also of the belief that MPs have a responsibility to be men and women of integrity and to act in accordance with the law. It is our duty to Singaporeans and what Singaporeans expect of us.

Clause (b) of the Leader's Motion asked the House to affirm the need to deal firmly and fairly with any MP who is being investigated for possible wrongdoing.

In principle, PSP has no objection to this. However, we may differ on what constitutes "firmly" and "fairly". We are not advocating that any MP who is under investigation should be suspended. That would indeed be unfair and setting the bar too low. Anyone can lodge a complaint and an investigation will be triggered. Out of the many cases investigated, a much smaller number would result in an arrest, as had happened with Minister Iswaran.

We do, however, maintain that an MP or Minister who is under investigation for corruption and suspended from official duties should be put on no-pay leave until the investigation or criminal case is concluded and will only receive back pay if they are subsequently cleared by the investigation or criminal case.

Clause (c) of the Leader's Motion asked the House to resolve to consider the matter regarding Minister Iswaran when the outcome of the ongoing investigation against him is known. In effect, it is asking the House to maintain the status quo where Minister Iswaran continues to draw his MP allowance until the investigations against him are completed.

This is unacceptable to PSP. It is unclear how long the investigations will take. We have seen that corruption investigations can take a long time, especially when it involves overseas participants.

In 2017, Keppel Offshore & Marine (KOM) admitted to corruption to the US Department of Justice. In December 2017, KOM was served a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution by CPIB, with investigations continuing into the KOM executives involved. The CPIB investigations only concluded more than five years later in January 2023, with a stern warning to the KOM executives.

If we do not suspend Minister Iswaran and he is subsequently charged and found guilty of corruption, we would not be able to recover the allowances that were paid to him while he was under investigation and not performing his duties.

There have been precedents of MPs who have remained an MP and continued to draw the full MP allowance throughout the entire legal process while they were charged for corruption until they chose to resign or were otherwise disqualified from office. This was the case with former PAP MP and Minister of State Wee Toon Boon in the 1970s, who remained an MP throughout his trial for corruption.

He was charged in April 1975 for corruption. He remained an MP for another one year and five months until September 1976 when he resigned. By the time he resigned as an MP, he had already served two months of his 18-month jail term.

PSP believes that it would be a most unsatisfactory situation if this were to happen in the case of Minister Iswaran. Given that Minister Iswaran is: one, under investigation for corruption; two, placed under arrest; and three, put on leave of absence by the Prime Minister, we believe that these three factors together make a strong case for his suspension from Parliament.

That is why today I have moved this Motion and sought leave to table a Private Member's Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act in order to create the legal mechanisms to back pay an MP their allowance if they are suspended.

PSP believes that the suspension together with the provision to back pay him should he be cleared of all wrongdoing is indeed dealing with the matter firmly and fairly. The Motion moved by the Leader of the House does not achieve this. It is, in fact, calling for a maintenance of the status quo.

Let us compare the financial outcome of suspending Minister Iswaran versus not suspending under two scenarios of him being innocent or guilty.

If Minister Iswaran is innocent, there is no difference in outcome between suspending or not suspending him. However, if Minister Iswaran is found guilty, there is a distinct difference. If he is not suspended from Parliament, he will gain the MP allowance while taxpayers lose tax revenue. If he is suspended, he loses the allowance while taxpayers save on tax revenue.

This clearly shows that suspending leads to a more desirable outcome financially. Therefore, if the House were to vote on the Motion as a whole, PSP will be voting against the Motion moved by the Leader. I hope all Members will support the Motion moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai and I.

Yes, Leader. You may seek a clarification.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wish to seek some clarifications from Ms Poa so that when I do my reply later, I can do so in a considered manner and we are not talking at cross purposes.

The first clarification I am seeking is this: under what specific provision is Ms Poa seeking to suspend Mr Iswaran? I know Ms Poa would like to suspend him in order to cut his allowance. But the cutting of the allowance is an outcome. It happens when you suspend somebody. But you cannot just suspend in vacuum. There has to be, as I mentioned in my earlier speech, a threshold, a section of legislation or some legal provision where you seek suspension.

So, my clarification is this – under which section of legislation or what regulation is Ms Poa seeking to suspend?

Ms Poa.

If I recall correctly, I believe it is section 56(5). Basically, it is a provision where there is no restriction to circumstances under which Parliament can suspend a Member.

Is Ms Poa referring to the Standing Orders (SOs)?

Yes.

SO56(5)? SO 56 has no "(5)". It is just 56.

Oh, sorry, section 59(5) – "Nothing in this Standing Order shall be taken to deprive Parliament of the power of proceeding against any Member according to any resolution of Parliament."

My second clarification, therefore, is this – if that is the relevant provision of the SOs, is Ms Poa saying that we do not need to have any principles for suspension? We just suspend because we can? In other words, you do not look to see whether something has occurred; in other words, you do it because you can do it.

What is the principle on which she is saying that we should suspend?

I believe I have stated the basis of asking for suspension quite clearly. Basically, let me reiterate that being investigated for corruption, under arrest and not performing his MP duties. I accept that there are no current rules prescribing exactly the circumstances under which a Member can be suspended, but I do not see that as a prohibition against doing something that we feel is the right thing to do even though the rule has not yet been put in place.

Just one further clarification. Because Ms Poa has limited it quite carefully to corruption. Can I ask Ms Poa, is it her view then that if an MP is under investigation for murder or for rape, then suspension should not apply?

I have not thought about those other cases. It is not my intention to set out the rules under which Members can be suspended. I am merely looking at the case in point, where I feel there is a strong case for suspension.

As to setting out generic rules, I believe that there will be somebody in Government or Leader of the House that is in charge of that.

Just to confirm. Ms Poa is not bringing this Motion as a matter of broad principle of general application, but a very specific targeted Motion directed at Mr Iswaran. Is that correct?

Yes, I believe that all disciplinary cases are of that nature.

Mr Vikram Nair, you have a clarification for Ms Hazel Poa?

I have two clarifications for Ms Hazel Poa. The first is: does Ms Hazel Poa agree with the presumption of innocence? And the second is: does Ms Hazel Poa agree that a person who is charged or accused of any wrongdoing should be given a chance to answer that charge and should know the applicable rule before he is charged?

Yes, of course, I do, which is why we are also making the provision to back pay the Minister if he should be found innocent. There is no presumption of guilt here; just how to better use taxpayers' money. And Minister Iswaran will be going through the full process of the law to determine whether or not he is guilty or innocent.

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

In accordance with the decision of the House to have a simultaneous debate on both Motions, I will now call on Members to make their speeches.

Members are allowed to consider both Motions in a single speech. The time limits will apply as if it were a debate on a single Motion. At the end of the debate, I will put the questions on both Motions to a vote, so that the House can express its views on each Motion separately.

As the intent of the Business Motion is for Parliament to debate the two Motions together and vote on them at the end of the debate, I will disallow any amendment that has the effect of substantially qualifying, transposing, contradicting or nullifying the other Motion.

Any Member who disagrees with a Motion can vote against that Motion. Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support my colleague Ms Hazel Poa's Motion today.

The Progressive Singapore Party (PSP), tabling this Motion today, that is of historic significance, which is to uphold the zero-tolerance approach that our nation has towards corruption.

For many years, the People's Action Party (PAP) government has been telling Singaporeans we must provide high pay to Ministers and Parliamentarians in order to ensure that the Government maintains its fairness and incorruptibility.

The PSP agrees with paying people well to maintain corruptibility, but we also believe that when a Minister or Parliamentarian is being investigated for corruption and when this investigation or criminal case has not been ended yet, they should be suspended from their duties, or they should stop receiving such high pay for the time being. If the Parliamentarian or Minister were to be decided to be acquitted and to be guilt-free, then the full amount of the pay due to him during the unpaid leave period should be paid back.

The Leader of the House, Ms Indranee Rajah, today also raised a Motion and it requires that Parliament awaits the result of Minister Iswaran's case to be out before we make a decision on this. If Parliament were to choose to agree with that Motion and to reject the Motion from the PSP, then what is, in fact, happening is that we are maintaining the status quo; which means that Minister Iswaran, during this period of investigation when he is on leave, he will continue to receive more than $16,000 every month in terms of Member of Parliament’s (MP) subsidies or allowance until the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has completed the investigation into him.

This means that the annual payout could be up to S$192,500 in terms of MP allowances and it comes from the public coffers, and it is the taxpayers who are actually contributing to the public coffers. The Government has the responsibility to prudently use the taxpayers' money and it has the obligation to prevent taxpayers' money from being abused or misused. To that end, the PSP disagrees with the Motion from the Leader of the House and is unable to agree or accept that arrangement.

The PSP believes that if Minister Iswaran is eventually found to be not guilty of corruption, then taxpayers, due to the restrictions of the current laws, would not be able to recover or claw back the money that has been paid out. But if we do not claw it back, that means that taxpayers, during the period through which a person is being investigated of a corruption have, for no reason, paid a large sum of money to this person under corruption charges. We are talking about a sum of $16,000 per month. That is not a small amount. From the Ministry of Manpower, we can understand that there are so many Singaporeans who are working diligently and contributing their labour and effort, and, despite that, their household income is below that of $16,000.

Of course, the PSP also wants to seriously proclaim that we believe that before Minister Iswaran is proven to be guilty by the Court, he is innocent. Suspending his duties and allowance are but temporary. If he is found to be not guilty eventually, then we should, when the whole investigation is completed, repay him the MP allowance.

The PSP would like to say that for taxpayers and Minister Iswaran, there should be a fair approach. And that is why we are tabling this Motion today to suspend his duties and MP allowance for the time being.

The PSP would also like to urge Parliament to move or agree to the Motion tabled by Ms Hazel Poa and myself, and amend the 1962 Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act in order to ensure that Parliament has the right to back pay Minister Iswaran while he is absolved and when he resumes his public duties.

The PSP has tabled this Motion for the for the amendment Bill because we truly want to improve our system, and this is valid, reasonable and in accordance with the laws. We hope that all Parliamentarians can understand our intention and provide full support.

(In English): I support the Motion moved by Ms Hazel Poa. For country, for people.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, I refer to the Motions filed by the Leader of the House on 14 September, precipitated by the Motion filed by PSP's Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Hazel Poa on 7 September calling for the suspension of Mr S Iswaran.

In my view, there are two key issues for Parliament to consider: first, whether it is fair and proper for a duly elected Member of Parliament (MP) to be suspended from responsibilities towards his or her constituents and legislative duties before due process is concluded; second, what Parliament ought to do when an MP has been effectively interdicted from MP duties arising from actions taken by his or her Party leader.

First, let me speak on the issue of fairness.

The hon Member Ms Hazel Poa's case is that a Member should be suspended from Parliament because he has been arrested and is being investigated for the serious offence of corruption. However, the centrality of the rule of law in Singapore renders the hon Member's suggested course of action premature, a point made all the more stark because we do not even know the details of what Mr S Iswaran is accused of. Parliament should be mindful of the dictum of presumption of innocence.

With respect, I would also request PSP colleagues in the House to consider the precedent their Motion would create should a future government decide to fix Opposition MPs by way of politically motivated investigations.

Sir, in some cases, those who have been investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been charged. In a few other cases, accused persons who have been brought to trial have been acquitted or the prosecution applies to withdraw the charges. In yet other cases, those convicted at first instance have seen their convictions overturned on appeal. Any of these scenarios could come to pass in Mr Iswaran's case.

In the Workers' Party's (WP) view, the wheels of justice must be allowed to fully turn before Parliament decides what to do.

The WP cannot agree to the Motion filed by the PSP. It would not just be unfair and premature but, significantly, this House would be seeking to overturn the electoral mandate given to Mr Iswaran by the people through the ballot box by prematurely passing judgement on him.

This leads me to the second issue on how to deal with an MP who has been put by his party leader on indeterminate leave of absence from Parliament with full MP's allowance. While it may not be appropriate to suspend Mr Iswaran from Parliament, it may well be appropriate to suspend the payment of his MP allowance.

WP MP Mr Dennis Tan raised this matter of Mr Iswaran's MP allowance in Parliament last month.

Mr Speaker, there is disquiet among members of the public because he continues to collect his allowance. As far as I know, Mr Iswaran is neither performing duties in his constituency nor in Parliament and his likeness is not found on Town Council or People's Association banners in West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

The Prime Minister said in this House last month that if Parliament wants to stop an MP's allowance, Parliament has to move to interdict the individual as an MP and Parliament has not done that and, I quote, "What has happened is that the MP has been on a leave of absence and, eventually, when the case is settled in one way or another, then consequences would follow." What needs to be noted, however, is that the Prime Minister's act of interdicting Mr Iswaran as Minister appears to have effectively interdicted him as an MP as well.

For the WP to decide on whether to support the Leader's Motion, there are a few questions I would like to ask the Leader in order that this House can understand the full extent of the restrictions on Mr Iswaran as an MP.

My first question is: can the Leader confirm whether Mr Iswaran's ban on entering Government buildings extends to Parliament House? Does Mr Iswaran have access to the Public Service Division's MP Appeal System and is he rendering assistance or expected to do so to his residents in his capacity as an MP?

My second question addresses the Prime Minister's comment that consequences will follow. It is unclear if those, I quote, "consequences" include a clawback of the MP allowance. I would advance that such a clawback for the period during which he has not performed MP's duties would be a reasonable expectation of the public. So, my second question is this: can the Leader tell us whether a clawback of Mr S Iswaran's MP allowance is within the PAP's contemplation in so far as clause (c) of the Leader's Motion is concerned? For completeness, it is this issue that forms the basis of my Parliamentary Question today and filed on 7 September about the duration Mr Iswaran is expected to be absent from Parliament.

My third question concerns para (c) of the Leader's Motion where it says that this House will consider this matter when the outcome of ongoing investigations is known. This contrasts with what the Prime Minister said during the clarifications of the Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on Mr Iswaran last month. The Prime Minister said and, I quote, "If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever."

My third question is this: can the Leader clarify whether the word "outcome" in para (c) of the Leader's Motion means that this House will consider this matter once investigations are completed and a decision has been made on whether charges would be preferred against Mr Iswaran or if it means that this House will consider this matter only upon conclusion of the entire criminal justice process, including any possible appeal?

The WP's position on the Leader's Motion will turn on the responses to these three specific queries.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, I was taken aback when I saw the Motion by the hon NCMP Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai.

In their Motion, they asked that "This House suspends Mr S Iswaran from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of the Fourteenth Parliament."

In Ms Hazel Poa’s Facebook page, she said that she had filed the Motion so that Mr S Iswaran no longer receives his MP allowance while he has been requested by the Prime Minister to not perform any official duties during his investigation by CPIB.

Sir, it is a fundamental principle of law that any person who is accused of an offence is deemed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of law. The burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, and the accused is assumed to be innocent until the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime that he has been charged with. The accused does not even need to prove his innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

This principle is also enshrined in the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At Article 11, it says: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time that the penal offence was committed."

Sir, to the best of my knowledge, Mr Iswaran is currently under investigations by CPIB. He has not been charged for an offence and neither has he been convicted in a Court of law of any offence.

In the statement made by the Prime Minister on 2 August 2023, Prime Minister Lee said that "while investigating a separate matter, CPIB came across some information concerning Minister Iswaran that merited investigation. CPIB would need to interview Minister Iswaran to take the investigation further and he sought my concurrence to open a formal investigation. Minister Iswaran was brought in by CPIB and subsequently released on bail. I instructed him to take leave of absence until the investigations were completed."

Sir, to this date, I am not aware of any other facts that have come out and the Prime Minister had said that CPIB investigations are still ongoing. He said, "Details cannot be provided so as not to prejudice the investigations."

Thus, if Ms Hazel Poa of PSP is asking that Parliament suspend Mr S Iswaran simply because they feel that he does not warrant the MP’s allowance, then does this mean that they have already judged that Mr Iswaran had committed a wrongdoing even before the details of the investigations are out? Let me repeat that. They are judging that Mr Iswaran had committed a wrongdoing even before the details of the investigation are out. Surely, Mr Iswaran should be given due process and every opportunity to present his case before the Court of law if ever CPIB decides to charge him. And this is the basic principle behind the rule of law.

So, with the greatest respect, if PSP is advocating this principle, then it is a very dangerous principle. It means that if any member of the public lodges a Police report against Mr Leong or Ms Poa or, for that matter, any other MP and the Police decides to commence investigations against them, this House would similarly have to suspend them from the service of Parliament.

If Ms Poa or Mr Leong feels that an MP ought to be suspended from service merely because he is under investigation, let us seek advice and I think the Leader of the House has said already that this principle would then have to be applicable to all MPs in this House.

In the 2 August Sitting, I asked Mr Leong whether it is his position that the Leader of Opposition, Mr Pritam cannot receive his salary or cannot carry out his duties in Parliament merely because he has been referred to the Police for investigation. Mr Leong then replied that it only pertains to investigation by CPIB. But why only cases involving CPIB? As the Leader of the House said, "Why not for other offences, other serious offences – molest, rape, murder" or is it purely an arbitrary decision made by PSP?

So, allow me to ask Mr Leong again – if an MP is investigated for perjury, for lying under oath, is that not a serious offence, too? It involves an allegation of dishonest conduct, an allegation of lying under oath which means that we cannot trust that person who may lie at any opportunity. Is Ms Poa or Mr Leong saying that these offences are not serious?

Sir, allow me to clarify that I hold the Leader of the Opposition with great respect. While I may not agree with Mr Pritam Singh on some political matters, I will stand to defend his right to sit in Parliament unless he is convicted of an offence and, even then, the punishment levied must be such that it will disqualify him from serving as an MP under the Constitution, because not every punishment will result in disqualification as an MP under the Constitution.

So, the fundamental question which I have for the two NCMPs is: what is their basis for asking for Mr Iswaran to be suspended from service when we do not even know what is the case against him? He has been placed on leave of absence and, hence, is not able to attend Parliament. So, I do not understand this rush to suspend him. Why not allow the CPIB time to do its work? Does PSP say that every single Government officer who is under investigation for any offence also be suspended, and the salary docked?

Why would PSP want Parliament to amend an Act of Parliament just simply to push for the suspension of salary of one particular MP? Is it their position that you punish first – suspend, cut his salary – and then reimburse him later if he is found guilty? This goes against the rule of law.

So, for that reason, I cannot support this Motion by Ms Poa and Mr Leong. I firmly believe that once the case against Mr Iswaran is concluded, the Government will do whatever is right to ensure that all parties are treated fairly. Hence, I support the Motion by the Leader of the House that we wait for the outcome of the investigations before considering any other action.

I think Mr Lim actually used the wrong word here. The reimbursement should be if the Member is found innocent.

Yes. Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

Sir, there are two applicable principles that this House should look at when considering the Motions before us.

The first is the legal principle of the presumption of innocence, which have been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Lim. The second is the legal and democratic principle of tenure of office as provided in the Constitution.

The first is a simple, almost universal principle that where a person is being investigated or has been charged with an offence, he is to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. The Government's stated position is equivocal support for this principle.

As the hon Minister for Law said in response to the hon Member Christopher de Souza's Parliamentary Question on this in August 2008, I quote, "Let there not be any doubt on this point. The presumption of innocence is an important and fundamental principle, and it is one of the foundations of our criminal justice system. The Government is absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence as a core principle in our commitment to the rule of law."

The principle is also applied by the Courts in Singapore. In a judgment by then Justice VK Raja, also in 2008, His Honour wrote, "If the evidence is insufficient to support the prosecution's theory of guilt, the judge must acquit the accused... it simply has not been proved to the satisfaction of the law that the accused is guilty, and the presumption of innocence stands unrebutted."

As it stands, Minister Iswaran is still under investigation. No charges have been brought at this point and no determination has been made by a Court. Therefore, the presumption of innocence continues to stand unrebutted.

The second principle is that of tenure of office. Article 46(1) of the Constitution provides that an MP will continue to be an MP from the time of election until the next dissolution of Parliament. The MP's seat would only become vacant under certain circumstances, which are enumerated in article 46(2). These include: (a) resigning; (b) failing to attend Sittings in two consecutive months without obtaining leave from the Speaker; and (c) becoming subject to the disqualifications from being a Member of Parliament like being convicted for an offence by a Court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $10,000.

The principle of tenure of an MP is important. It is a nod to the fact that MPs are elected by the people, who are the highest source of authority in a democracy and that they should therefore not be easily removable by any other authority in the land.

This underlying reason should also apply to suspensions because the suspension is imposed by a body other than the people and prevents an MP from carrying out what he was elected to do. It should therefore not be a lever that is easily available and should only be used under very narrow circumstances.

Suspension is provided for in sections 21(1)C and 21(2) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962. The narrow circumstances in which it may be invoked is where the MP has displayed dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. Importantly, these circumstances must be proven.

As regard abuse of privilege, an MP must be first found guilty of abuse of privilege. As regards contempt, the MP must first have had to be found to have committed contempt by a Select Committee or found guilty in a court of law, pursuant to prosecution by the Public Prosecutor, or if an MP was summarily determined by Parliament to be guilty if the alleged offence was committed in the view of Parliament or where it was Sitting.

The Standing Orders (SOs) also provide for suspension of a Member. SO59 provides that Parliament may suspend a Member but specifically so for the commission of the offences of disregarding the authority of the Chair or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of Parliament by abusing the rules of Parliament. Such a suspension requires that a vote be put to Parliament to determine whether such an offence had actually been committed.

Ms Poa referred to SO59(5). If I may read that out, "Nothing in this Standing Order shall be taken to deprive Parliament of the power of proceeding against any Member according to any resolution of Parliament." This does not mean that Parliament has the ability or the right to willy nilly decide to pass resolutions and to suspend Members for any reason. These resolutions must be pursuant to one of the provisions that I had mentioned earlier.

So, the common thread through all of these prescribed potential avenues for the suspension of an MP is that it must have been judged or determined in the manner provided that an offence had actually been committed. In the current matter involving Minister Iswaran, the case is still under investigation. No judgment or determination has been arrived at.

I therefore come back to what I started with. In the current matter, the presumption of innocence continues to stand unrebutted and any move by Parliament to suspend the Minister as an MP is not only premature but does not have legal legs to stand on. For completeness, there is also no mechanism to suspend merely an MP's salary.

In this regard, I cannot support the Motion by the hon NCMP. I will support the Motion by the hon Minister Indranee Rajah. Her Motion restates the standards that we expect our MPs to have. It affirms that they are to be treated fairly but firmly in the period after investigations are initiated, but before the presumption of innocence is rebutted, and resolves to deal with the matter at hand once the outcomes of investigations are known.

As a final point, Sir, I would like to confess that unlike Mr Lim, who was disturbed by it, when I first saw the Motion, as a graduate in both political science and law, I was quite titillated by this question of the circumstances in which an elected MP could be removed, suspended or otherwise prevented from exercising the mandate given to him by voters. I listened very carefully to Ms Poa's speech to identify the legal leg upon which her Motion would stand – but there was none.

In fact, Ms Poa even glossed over the basic requirement to invoke any of the avenues for suspension, which is that the presumption of innocence must first be rebutted.

The matter involving Minister Iswaran has understandably created anxiousness and some amount of consternation amongst the public. As a polity that prices transparency, fairness and incorruptibility, it is not unexpected that questions on egalitarian treatment or just or unjust remuneration have a reason in relation to this case. These matters invoke emotions in people.

But Parliament operates within the constructs created by the Constitution, by law and by our SOs. Whether it is to do with the suspension of a Member, formalities like Points of Order, apologies or Guillotine Times for Budget Cuts, or larger questions like how to ensure free and fair debate in this Chamber, there are laws, rules and procedures that apply to all of us. If a Member disagrees with these constructs or thinks that there are better ways to do things, then it is open to that Member to propose to amend them and for Parliament to consider these proposed amendments. It is an MP's prerogative.

But as long as these provisions stand, they must be abided by, and Motions, Debates and proposals must be framed within them. This is called the rule of law.

Where there is public concern and emotion on certain matters, it is an indication to our Government to address these matters and to assure the public, which is what the Prime Minister and other Ministers had done in relation to this matter at the last Sitting. It is not a licence to proceed to do something outside the constructs of the law in a knee-jerk reaction.

As much as I can understand public frustration with having to wait while investigations are underway, we must allow due process to run its course. And as difficult as it may be in a public justice system where accused persons are publicly mentioned, we must maintain the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.