Hansard, Tuesday, 2 April 2024

Order. I wish to inform Members that under the provisions of Standing Order No 102, I have on 19 March this year nominated Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin to fill a vacancy in the House Committee and Mr Murali Pillai to fill a vacancy in the Public Petitions Committee. The nominations took effect from 19 March 2024.

Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Health (a) for each year from 2021 to 2023, what is the number of vaping feedback received by the Health Science Authority (HSA) from the public, educational institutions, Police and the Central Narcotics Bureau, respectively; (b) what is the size of HSA’s enforcement team dedicated to vaping enforcement; (c) what is the number of summons on vaping offences issued by HSA in the last three years; and (d) how many summons are issued in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies.

Mr Speaker, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) received 1,700, 1,500 and 2,070 vaping-related feedback from the public and through other agencies in 2021, 2022 and 2023 respectively. We do not have readily available data on the breakdown of the feedback sources.

We are taking a multi-agency collaborative approach to enforcement. Hence, while HSA is primarily a scientific agency with a modestly-sized enforcement team, it is supplemented by outsourcing and enforcement support from other agencies such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), National Parks Board (NParks) and Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). Our schools also take an active approach to prevent students from picking up the habit of vaping.

There were about 7,600, 5,600 and 8,000 vaping-related offences in 2021, 2022 and 2023 respectively. Of the vaping-related offences, about 4,700, 5,000, 7,900 were purchase, use and possession offences in the same three years. Cases which require a Notice of Composition to be issued are handled by HSA.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker. Thank you to Ms Rahayu for the comprehensive reply. I just want to ask a couple of supplementary questions. The first is: has the size of HSA's enforcement team grown for the past three years, since I see that the figures for violations for vaping have increased quite steadily? Two, is the agency also getting help from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and the Police Force to help in the enforcement. Three, we read about the multi-agency approach to vaping enforcement as well as the importing of vaping equipment. Can Ms Rahayu give more details on how this is set up and what are the key performance indicators (KPIs) to be met?

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Member's concern about the size of the enforcement team at HSA to deal with this growing problem. We note the concern and the approach that we are taking is, as mentioned, that we are looking at a multi-agency approach. We do have to look at this issue from a multi-pronged perspective as well.

We are taking the approach of outsourcing some of the enforcement measures. The agencies will cross enforce, meaning that if there are agencies that take up and pick up some of these cases of vaping, it is referred to HSA and HSA can then issue the necessary Notice of Composition.

The Member had also asked whether the Police is also involved in this. Yes. If they go out and as they do their own work, and they do discover cases of vaping, they will refer these cases to HSA, and also at many different fronts, because this issue, as you know, is a big one.

We are also looking at things upstream. At the front where it relates to the sale and the advertisement of the products online, we are working with the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and the Infocomm Media Development Authority. This is where we are working with other agencies to track and stop the efforts of people selling all these products online.

We are working with the agencies in the community, as I mentioned earlier, with NEA, NParks, the Police, in the community. When they catch these cases, these cases are referred to us and then we issue the Notice of Composition or do the necessary enforcement.

We are also working with the schools. The schools work with us to look at education and informing the public about it.

These are some of the various efforts of how this multi-agency collaboration effort works. We are continually monitoring this. And if there is a need, we can definitely size the manpower and adjust our manpower accordingly to address the problem.

At this juncture, because it is something that happens in multi-facets of people's lives – I mean, we also have to consider things like at the borders when things get smuggled in – so, we do need to take that approach of working together with all these other agencies collectively, so that we can have a more effective response to the growing problem.

Mr Ang.

Thank you, Speaker. But at this point in time, when a member of the public or the schools call the Police for help in vaping enforcement, they will be asked to refer it to HSA. So, I hope HSA can work with the different agencies to have a no-wrong-door policy to deal with this feedback, rather than all go to HSA, which is a very modest set-up, as you said. We do not want to have a young generation that is a vaping generation in Singapore.

I thank the Member for the feedback. If he has some specific issues that have arisen, please do let us know. This is something that we have also progressed over time. Initially, perhaps, there may have been some apprehension with regard to the other agencies getting involved in this, but we had recently announced the multi-agency effort, so, I think there is better coordination now between the agencies.

We are looking at how we can make sure that the different aspects are dealt with. For example, if it is a complaint to schools, the schools will look at it with disciplinary proceedings as well. At the same time now, we are also making sure that HSA is kept apprised of this and the necessary compositions are issued.

But I note your concerns about the enforcement measures all being handled by HSA. At this juncture, it comes under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, and that is something that is under the purview of HSA. So, at this juncture, the enforcement bit of that, in terms of issuing of composition as well as any action taken in Court, is done by HSA.

But actually, there are other aspects of the work – there is the catching, there is education, there is also checking at the borders, there is checking on the online space – which all need collective effort from different agencies.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response. Since 1 December 2023, NEA's enforcement officers have been empowered to take action against individuals who possess vaporisers and cases have been referred to HSA. Two supplementary questions. One, will more agencies come on board as part of this cross-enforcement project? And two, will HSA continue to take the lead on this issue and ensure that, amongst the agencies involved, processes will be aligned, protocols will be made smoother in the apprehension of people who have vaporisers?

We will continue to assess and monitor the situation. At this juncture, yes, HSA is the one that is doing the enforcement. When we are involving all these agencies, there is some thought to it. These are the agencies that are relevant in the problem. They are involved because, as I mentioned earlier, there are different aspects of the issue which we want to resolve, and their support and action is also necessary.

We need to figure out what is the best approach. It is not just about bringing all different agencies in, but how can they meaningfully come on board to work together.

We are looking at how we can ensure effective enforcement and deploy resources meaningfully. I guess that addresses his first question about whether there are other agencies coming on board. We will assess this.

In terms of whether there will be guidelines and protocols in place, yes, that is something that is being looked at. At the moment, there is some understanding between the different agencies as to how to make this work meaningfully so that we are having an integrated approach that will help to address the whole problem.

2 Mr Mark Lee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will consider a classification framework for SkillsFuture courses, featuring a dual-index system with (i) a Mobility Index to assess the potential for career advancement of these skills within and across industries and (ii) an Industry Heat Index to gauge hiring trends in booming sectors; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry can collaborate with trade associations to ensure these indices accurately reflect industry demands, and integrate it into the MySkillsFuture portal for users to make informed choices.

Mr Speaker, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) works closely with industry partners, such as queen bee companies, trade associations and professional bodies, to analyse market trends in high-growth sectors and translate them into job and skills insights. These are published regularly so that individuals can make use of the information. For example, the annual Skills Demand for the Future Economy report identifies the priority skills for the green, digital and care economies.

In relation to the Member’s suggestion of a Mobility Index, the Skills Demand for the Future Economy report provides information on career transition pathways to help individuals with relevant skills pivot to job roles in these growth sectors. Information on hiring demand for these priority skills, in terms of the number of job postings and types of jobs that require these skills, is also provided within the report and as an accompanying Jobs Skills Dashboard, which is similar in intent to the Member’s suggestion of an Industry Heat Index.

We welcome partnerships with the industry and trade associations, including the Singapore Business Federation, to further improve the signposting of SkillsFuture courses to individuals seeking to upskill.

Mr Mark Lee.

I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. I was wondering because if you read the newspaper article on TODAY, there are certain sectors that are saying that there is a large skills mismatch, especially for the tech sector. Perhaps we can work more closely with the business community to ensure that there is more transparency and more signposts for individuals to understand what skills are required within certain specific industries. The trade associations are wanting to work hand-in-hand with you. And maybe there would be a requirement for higher subsidies for maybe the hottest skills that are needed and less for skills that are currently in less demand.

I thank the Member for his suggestion. In fact, SSG welcomes more partnerships with the business associations and trade associations. Just for information, we work very closely with the sector agencies to identify suitable groups that we can work with so that the information on jobs and skills can be made more responsive and available to Singaporeans who are looking for jobs and skills training opportunities.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Joan Pereira –

3 To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider offering Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme rental vouchers of more than $300 a month for couples who are from families with lower household incomes and who stay in smaller flats.

4 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last three years, what is the average increase in open market rents for HDB 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats; (b) whether the Government will consider raising the monthly household income ceiling of $7,000 for families using the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (Open Market) Voucher to rent HDB flats from the open market; and (c) if not, how will the Government assist more young couples to afford interim rental properties in the open market.

Question No 3, Sir.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 3 and 4 together.

Please proceed.

Open market rents had stayed broadly stable prior to the COVID-19 pandemic but have increased in the past three years due to unprecedented supply-side constraints and increased rental demand arising from COVID-19.

In 2021, the average year-on-year increase in open market rents for Housing and Development (HDB) 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats was 5%. This increased to 35% in 2022, amid the easing of border restrictions and recovery of non-resident rental demand. We have since implemented a suite of measures to support households who need to rent accommodations. These include increasing both private and public housing supply, temporarily relaxing the occupancy cap for larger HDB flats and private residential properties, as well as ramping up our supply of rental flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, or PPHS.

Public and private housing rents have shown signs of stabilising. The average year-on-year increase in open market rents for HDB 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats was 10% in 2023.

The PPHS provides a temporary housing option for families with less income at their disposal to rent a flat while waiting for their HDB flats to be completed. HDB is working to double the supply of PPHS flats from about 2,000 units currently to about 4,000 units by 2025.

Meanwhile, we will introduce the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher Scheme as a temporary measure to support eligible families who rent HDB flats or bedrooms in the open market. The scheme will run for a one-year period from July 2024 and eligible families will receive $300 per month. Families must be eligible for PPHS and have a rental tenancy registered with HDB.

The PPHS Voucher parameters have been carefully calibrated to provide some relief for eligible families, while mitigating the potential inflationary impact on the rental market. The $7,000 income ceiling targets our support at families with less income at their disposal to rent on the open market. Given the voucher quantum of $300 per month, eligible families will receive up to $3,600 if they qualify for the full year of support. Families will have the flexibility to select a rental option – whether a whole flat or an HDB bedroom – that suits their budget and needs.

There are currently no plans to raise the income ceiling of $7,000 for the PPHS Voucher, or to offer a higher voucher quantum. Households with incomes above $7,000 but have additional expenses due to exceptional circumstances, such as high medical expenses, may approach HDB for help. HDB will consider their applications on a case-by-case basis.

Families will also continue to have the option to apply for a PPHS flat offered by HDB. Married couples with children will continue to be given priority for PPHS flats. In recent exercises, all married applicants with children, including those expecting children, had a chance to select a PPHS flat.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Given that, if I look at the median rentals of 3- to 4- room flats in the last two years since the income ceiling was introduced in 2021, I think it has gone up by about 30% to 70%, or about $600 to $1,600, a month, which is considerably more than the $300 voucher given, which while would go some way in defraying the rental costs, I wanted to ask the Minister if she would consider whether or not to provide greater assistance, especially for those who are less able to afford it, in the interest of equity, especially if rents continue to increase during this one-year trial period.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think the first thing to bear in mind is that the $7,000 cap is actually a measure to help those who are less able to afford. That is the first point, because if we did not have that cap or if we increased that cap, you would have more people coming in, and that would drive the rents up. So, the first point to bear in mind is the $7,000 is a way of helping the lower-income group.

I think the main point he was asking was whether there would be greater assistance for those less able to afford it. At the moment, there are no plans to increase the voucher amount, but do not forget that we do have plans to double or to increase the number of PPHS flats.

So, there is a range of measures. There would be those who would be able to afford, to rent on the open market, whether private or HDB. Then, remember, in 2021, when we first introduced the PPHS, we started at about 800 PPHS units; which, in 2022, we then said we would be increasing to 840. And then by 2023, we actually more than doubled it to about 2,000. And now, we will be doubling it to 4,000. So, by increasing the number of PPHS flats and putting that into the mix, the lower-income can access that, even if they are not using the PPHS voucher.

I think what I would like to say is that we will keep an eye on this. We will bear in mind those who are not able to afford, to have such easy access. But for now, there are no plans to increase the amount. And also, for the PPHS voucher, we only just announced it in Budget this year. We have to give it some time to run.

5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Defence in view of the recent incident where a private military conference call in a Singapore hotel was being intercepted (a) whether the Government is investigating the incident to identify and address specific vulnerabilities in our telecommunications infrastructure; and (b) whether there are measures in place to safeguard the security of communications lines originating from Singapore, especially during international meetings and military events which involve high-level foreign dignitaries.

Mr Speaker, this reply will only address the hon Member's question as to whether Singapore can safeguard the security of communications used by visitors to international and military events held here. It is a reply in general, without reference to any incident referred to by the Member.

Participants to international events and conferences, including those attended by military personnel and government leaders and officials do not, as a rule, expect the host country to provide secured means of communications. Even if a host country is to offer such means, it is questionable whether foreign participants are comfortable using it. Foreign guests who need to transmit sensitive information will typically arrange their own secured means, such as encryption hardware or software, commercial secured or embassy lines and other security measures. This is the practice of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officials when attending meetings overseas.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on the potential impact of this incident on Singapore's reputation for international military and defence-related discussions, like the Shangri-La Dialogue? And is the Ministry proactively conducting vulnerability assessments on our telecommunications infrastructure to prevent something like this from happening?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. First, I must explain that there is a difference between conferences and meetings that are organised by Singapore, that are of a sensitive nature, like Government meetings, military meetings where communications are sensitive. Secured measures are implemented for those meetings. That is one type.

Then, there are the general communications that visitors to Singapore – tourists and other visitors to Singapore – may choose to use, such as open communication lines. These are not within the purview of the Government or the military meetings that we are referring to. For those, the visitors would have to, as I said in my reply, take necessary measures themselves, such as using encryption hardware and software, or other means that they are confident of being secure. Overall, we will also encourage everybody to practise cyber hygiene and take care when using, for example, open wi-fi access.

For MINDEF and SAF, we take a proactive approach to cybersecurity when we are involved in high signature events, inclusive of those involving high level foreign dignitaries. And we work closely with event organisers, who remain accountable for the overall cybersecurity of these events.

These proactive efforts would include identifying events' digital footprint and cybersecurity risk areas, scanning the event websites and checking the commercial systems and applications used for the event, and working out the cybersecurity incident escalation and reporting processes.

If vulnerabilities are uncovered through these checks, the event organisers would be required to resolve them, prior to the events. MINDEF and SAF, however, do not cover the cybersecurity of foreign militaries' internal, unilateral virtual meetings, which are outside the scope of these events.

6 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of JTC Corporation's plan to reclaim 44 hectares of land to expand the Woodlands Checkpoint from the third quarter of 2024 (a) whether the Ministry anticipates any disamenities to residents and commuters in the vicinity; and (b) if so, how will the Ministry mitigate the inconvenience to those who may be affected.

Mr Speaker, as the appointed agent to carry out reclamation and related works at Woodlands Checkpoint, JTC is mindful that such reclamation works may increase noise, dust and traffic.

JTC will ensure the necessary mitigating measures to minimise inconveniences arising from such reclamation work. For example, JTC will erect a three-metre-high noise barrier along the shoreline of Woodlands Waterfront Park and restrict the duration of noisy activities where needed. It will also monitor and manage the air quality throughout the construction period and deploy dust suppression measures, such as water spraying. In addition, JTC will also moderate and monitor the traffic-related construction works to reduce congestion during peak hours.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank Minister of State for her reply. I have a few supplementary questions. One is in relation to the bus service that we understand, at this moment, is used by commuters to the checkpoints. Following from this reclamation, how will this change when the area will be closed, especially for roads around the Woodlands Town Centre?

The other question pertains to how this reclamation will affect the environment. In particular, some residents have expressed their concerns about the environmental impact study, whether that has been carried out to address any restoration of the natural habitat and species diversity in the area.

Finally, what I also understand is that, as part of these reclamations, there will also be some land that needs to be acquired from Malaysia to expand the checkpoint. How does that impact the development and will there be any delays in Malaysia's decision that may affect the implementation timelines?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank Ms Hany Soh for her three questions. First, let me take the last question about the land. The Woodlands Checkpoint is being redeveloped to provide a more sustainable and a more long-term solution to the chronic congestion at this land crossing, which can be described as the world's busiest and is of importance to both countries.

The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), is the overall project lead of the redevelopment of the Woodlands Checkpoint. They have conducted very extensive feasibility and technical studies, and assessed that the land needs for the redevelopment of Woodlands Checkpoint can only be met through a mix of land acquisition and land reclamation.

I want to assure her that the expanded Woodlands Checkpoint works will not disrupt the operations including of the bus service and so on. There might be some re-routing to keep passengers, commuters and motorists safe, but it will not disrupt the checkpoint operations. The expanded Woodlands Checkpoint will be operationalised progressively from 2028 and redevelopment works will not, like I have mentioned, disrupt the operations.

In terms of the first question, she asked about the bus, transport and so on. ICA and JTC do not anticipate any significant traffic diversion or detours due to the reclamation works.

Before I talk about the environmental impact assessment (EIA), I know she is serving the residents in that area, together with her Group Representation Constituency (GRC) mates, so, allow me to reassure her that JTC, as the agent appointed to conduct the reclamation works, will work very closely with ICA, as well as with the eventual contractor that has been appointed to do this, to implement necessary mitigating measures, such as the noise barriers I talked about, hoarding and also dust control.

I want to assure her that some of the mitigation measures for noise, for example, we have looked into all the details. For example, I mentioned the three-metre-high noise barrier. It will be erected along the shoreline of Woodlands Waterfront Park. I think she is very familiar with it. In fact, the whole length will be 600 metres long. I think she will be very assured by that. The length of the shoreline is about 300 metres and the length perpendicular to the shoreline is about 300 metres, so a total of 600 metres.

In terms of dust, I want to also assure her and her residents that JTC and the appointed contractor will certainly monitor the air quality and manage it. We will implement a range of dust control measures, I cited a few; for example, erecting hoarding to contain the dust, spraying water on the reclaimed land, cleaning the tyres of the vehicles at the site exits, keeping speed limits and so on. And in addition to all that, we will also make sure that the dust-intensive activities will be planned in stages or phases, to minimise accumulative dust emissions. I think it is important that I share these details with her and her residents.

On the environmental impact analysis, in fact, JTC has conducted a very detailed and in-depth EIA for the reclamation project, and it examines the air and water quality, the noise and the visual impact, the preservation of biodiversity, the habitat disturbances and so on.

And she may have noticed that JTC has put out the full EIA report. It was gazetted on 29 January this year and the hard copy was made available for public viewing at JTC Summit for four weeks, from 29 January to 26 February. Even though the public consultation has ended, if any parties are interested, including the residents, they can still write to JTC to review it.

The assessment revealed that the impact on the biodiversity would be considered insignificant with the mitigation measures carried out during the redevelopment of the Woodlands Checkpoint. The report does not expect major environmental concerns from the construction works. I want to assure her that all hands are on deck, not just within the Ministry of Trade and Industry and JTC, but together with ICA, in fact, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) as well and the appointed contractors to put in all the necessary measures to minimise disamenities to the residents, the commuters and also to the environment.

Ms Soh.

Thank you, Minister of State. Just one quick clarification, which I also seek your reassurance on. I understand that the viaduct that will be constructed will run through the Marsiling Park area. So, will the relevant agencies be taking this opportunity to have a huddle and have a better understanding on how certain facilities will be improved, and also to minimise the disamenities that the park users will face around the area?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Ms Hany Soh for her follow-up supplementary questions. And her question on the viaduct is part of the broader Woodlands Checkpoint expansion that MHA and ICA are undertaking. So, this part does not come under the JTC reclamation works, but in the spirit of whole-of-Government, we welcome her to file a separate Parliamentary Question, and our counterparts at MHA will certainly provide her the details.

I know that MHA, ICA and HDB colleagues have as early as 2022 conducted door-to-door visits, conducted dialogues. And these dialogues will continue, and in fact, will intensify. As far as JTC is concerned, we are currently evaluating the tender to appoint the contractor, and once that has been finalised, we will conduct regular meetings between JTC and the contractor. The contractor will also appoint designated contact persons, more than one, in fact; and all these will be placed on notices at each HDB block and also at the hoarding, to make it easier for her, her community leaders, for the residents to give feedback. We certainly will put together the multi-agency team to bridge the communications with her and her team.

7 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government intends to take into account the Environmental Impact Study that was undertaken during the development of the former Keppel Club site, which found ecological connectivity for birds between the Southern Ridges and Labrador Nature Reserve, when conducting environmental studies of the proposed development of Gillman Barracks; and (b) if so, how will the Ministry ensure that any future development of Gillman Barracks will not significantly compromise this important ecological connectivity.

8 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether rejuvenation plans for Gillman Barracks that were announced by the Singapore Land Authority in 2022 will be taken into account when studying the future development of Gillman Barracks; and (b) whether the environmental and heritage studies commissioned for the potential development of the area will be accessible to environmental groups and the wider public.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Question Nos 7 and 8 on today’s Order Paper, as they both relate to the plans for Gillman Barracks?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. As announced during the recent Committee of Supply debate, the Government is studying the possibility of redeveloping the Gillman Barracks site for a mix of public and private housing. This will not affect the committed tenure of existing tenancies, which will progressively expire by 2030.

We will commence environmental and heritage studies in the second quarter of this year to guide the sensitive development of the site. When the studies are complete, we will publish these reports online for members of the public to provide their feedback.

Our plans will also take into account past studies, including findings on ecological connectivity from the National Parks Board (NParks’) Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE) and the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the redevelopment of the former Keppel Golf Course site.

Ms He.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I have a couple of supplementary questions. First is, in terms of the previous environmental impact assessments that were done, which found a significant ecological connectivity between the Keppel Club site and also the Southern Ridges and Labrador Nature Reserve site. The EIS for the nearby Keppel Club site found that even with mitigation measures, redevelopment could have major residual impact on biodiversity due to permanent habitat loss and fragmentation. In light of this, can the Minister clarify what specific plans are in place to designate sizeable core habitat patches and green corridors within Gillman Barracks to maintain landscape connectivity between the Labrador Nature Reserve, the Southern Ridges and the Greater Southern Waterfront? If there are no such plans, how does the Government intend to prevent critical ecological linkages from being irreversibly compromised?

I also heard the Minister mention earlier that the existing tenants whose leases will run out progressively until 2030, will not be affected if the plans to redevelop the site goes ahead at Gillman Barracks. However, I anticipate that there will be some new tenants who might come in and can the Minister confirm whether the leases will run beyond 2030? And also, will help be given to these tenants who come in a bit later, especially during the rejuvenation period? Will there be help given to them to find new leases elsewhere if the redevelopment plans actually do go through?

And finally, my last supplementary question is, I think the Minister mentioned earlier that there will be certain heritage and environmental impact assessments also carried out and that these will be made available. Can I ask whether the reports will eventually be made available in full for the public, because I understand that sometimes these are only made available in a redacted form. So, can I ask whether these will be made available in full?

I thank the Member for the three supplementary questions. As I said earlier in my reply, the masterplanning for the Gillman Barracks site will take place after we have done detailed environmental and heritage studies and that the planning for Gillman Barracks will take into account the EIS findings for the Keppel Golf Course site, in as far as the EPE findings are concerned.

In the Keppel Golf Course EPE, we identified five corridors that need to be provided for, even as we redevelop the site for residential housing on the golf course. And we will make sure that that ecological connectivity is provided for, in the surroundings of the Keppel Golf Course.

On lease, as I have said, the site had been made available for interim use since the 1990s. The existing tenancies will progressively expire by 2030. Thereafter, we will plan for the entire site, including residential as well as the commercial uses of the site. And so, at that point in time, we will engage the tenants, engage future tenants as far as the commercial use of the site is concerned. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for National Development", Official Report, 2 April 2024, Vol 95, Issue 133, Correction By Written Statement section.]

As for heritage, the studies for both the environmental and heritage studies will be made available online. As with all these studies, they come in large volumes with lots and lots of technical detail. We will make sure that what we put out is meaningful for members of the public as well as experts to be able to understand and comment on.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Mariam Jaafar –

9 To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the proportion and number of families who have received ComCare support in the past 24 months who do not live in public rental housing; and (b) whether the ComLink+ package can be extended to lower-income families who do not live in public rental housing.

Question No 9, Sir.

Sir, around half of households that received ComCare support in 2022 and 2023 did not reside in public rental housing. This translates to about 20,000 households. Many of these received Short- to Medium-Term Assistance, and may have been going through a temporary setback in life.

In addition to families with children residing in public rental housing, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will also offer ComLink+ to lower-income families that are not residing in public rental housing but who are eligible for KidSTART or the UPLIFT Community Network. We aim to reach 3,000 such households over the next three years. Like other ComLink+ families, these families can be offered the ComLink+ Progress Packages if they take active steps towards securing a better future for themselves.

ComLink+ represents society’s determination and good intention to uplift our lower-income households and to ensure no one is left behind as Singapore progresses. MSF’s focus during the three-year pilot is to make sure that we translate intentions into concrete and significant results for these families. Only then would we consider if ComLink+ should be expanded further to cover other groups of lower-income families.

Mr Zhulkarnain.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Of the 20,000 households not in public rental housing and receiving ComCare, how many are there not already enrolled in KidSTART, UPLIFT or Project DIAN, and what are the plans to engage these families in order to extend ComLink+ to them?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I mentioned, there are about 3,000 households who are not in rental flat housing but qualify for KidSTART or UPLIFT Community Network. So, in the next phase of ComLink+ in the next three years, where we are trialling our ComLink+ progress packages, we will be reaching out to these 3,000 families. And if these ComLink+ progress packages prove indeed successful, we will then consider reaching out to more lower-income families beyond these 3,000.

10 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are any restrictions on the employment or deployment of healthcare professionals who are undergoing investigation for charges relating to patient abuse; (b) for each year since 2010, what is the number of healthcare professionals who have been charged for patient abuse; and (c) of these, how many continued to work in the healthcare industry in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 (HCSA), all licensed healthcare institutions are required to report any incident or allegations of abuse involving a patient to their management. This includes cases of patient abuse by healthcare professionals.

The licensees must take steps as soon as possible to manage the risk of recurrent abuse. This may include the reassignment of a healthcare professional to non-clinical duties or to require the healthcare professional to take a leave of absence to minimise further patient interactions while investigations are ongoing. The healthcare professional may be further referred to the Police if a criminal offence is likely to have been committed and to the relevant Professional Board for further disciplinary action.

Since 2010, four healthcare professionals have been convicted of offences related to patient abuse. Disciplinary actions were taken in all these cases, including suspension and being struck off the appropriate professional register. Three are no longer practising and one returned to practice after serving a 15-month suspension.

11 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress made in the five mutually beneficial areas of collaboration that are identified in the first inaugural meeting of the India-Singapore Ministerial Roundtable in September 2022; and (b) what is the Ministry’s assessment on the role of the business community, in particular the Chambers of Commerce and trade associations, to achieve the desired outcomes laid down at the meeting.

Sir, the India-Singapore Ministerial Roundtable (ISMR) identified five areas of collaboration during the inaugural meeting held in September 2022. These five areas are food cooperation, health and pharmaceuticals, digitalisation, energy and green projects, and skills development. Since then, the digital payments linkage between Singapore’s PayNow and India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) was launched in February 2023. This allows customers of participating financial institutions to send and receive funds through their banks or their e-wallets in real time.

We also facilitated a pilot shipment involving the digital exchanges of Bills of Lading through the TradeTrust framework. The shipment showed that the digitalisation of cross-border trade financing documents can improve the efficiency, the speed and accuracy of information of shipment transactions.

There are also ongoing discussions on other initiatives, such as increasing food trade between India and Singapore.

Sir, India has the world’s fifth largest gross domestic product (GDP) and its rapid economic growth presents many opportunities for Singapore companies. The chambers of commerce and trade associations play a key role in encouraging and helping Singaporean companies and enterprises to do more business in India. For example, the Singapore Business Federation and the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry led business delegations to the Vibrant Gujarat Global Summit and Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet in January 2024.

12 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the fact that non-residents make up 83,500 of the 88,400 total employment growth in 2023, how will the Ministry ensure that the bulk of new jobs created in 2024 will go to Singapore citizens and residents, including those aged 40 and above.

Mr Speaker, the Member asked the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to ensure that the bulk of new jobs created go to Singaporeans. I think the Member seems to be under the misconception that a net increase in foreign employment means that jobs are not going to Singaporeans. I just want to clarify if that is so, then that view is fundamentally misguided. So, let me explain why.

Firstly, what MOM is focused on and is interested in is whether Singaporeans who want to find a job can indeed do so. One way to look at this is to examine the resident employment and unemployment rates.

In 2023, our resident employment rate was 66.2%. This puts us as having the fourth highest resident employment rate compared to other advanced economies in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Our resident unemployment rate and long-term unemployment rate remain very low, at 2.7% and 0.7% respectively. So, we are close to full employment.

In fact, the Government has invested much effort in safeguarding resident employment. To illustrate, over the 2020 to 2022 period, when COVID-19 had an impact on our economy and labour market, resident employment growth remained robust, increasing by more than 110,000, while non-resident employment declined by 3,000.

Secondly, with the slowing resident workforce growth, it is imperative that Singapore remains open to complementary foreign labour to meet the demands of our growing economy and our businesses. If you take a closer look at the 83,500 non-resident employment growth last year, about 18,700, or 22.4%, was from higher-skilled Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders. The total number of EP and S Pass holders combined is still below pre-COVID-19 levels. The remaining increase of 64,800, or accounting for more than 77%, was due to an increase in the number of holders for Work Permits and other work passes in sectors such as construction. These are not typically the type of jobs that Singaporeans want to do.

Members of the House, there is a global shortage of skilled talent, with global cities competing for both investments and human capital. To stay competitive and to nurture a vibrant corporate ecosystem, we need to ensure that our businesses can access talent and they can expand. Thriving businesses create jobs for Singaporeans. They contribute taxes which, in turn, can be used to improve the livelihoods of our fellow Singaporeans.

We continue to enhance the complementarity of our foreign workforce. We peg the minimum costs of hiring EP and S Pass holders to the top one-third of local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and the associate professionals and technicians (APTs) respectively.

By regularly updating the qualifying salaries based on the set wage benchmarks, we ensure that our EP and S Pass holders are of high quality and they maintain a level playing field for our locals. The Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS), which came into effect for new EP applications in September 2023, also allows us to evaluate EP candidates holistically, based on individual and firm-related attributes. This ensures that employers bring in the right profile of foreign workers to complement our local workforce and that companies develop healthy workforce profiles that are powered by a strong local core.

The fundamental objective of our approach is to strike a balance between ensuring that businesses have access to skills and manpower needed to grow and succeed, while creating opportunities for our local workers to grow and to progress. Our approach has helped our locals to secure good jobs.

Between 2013 and 2023, the number of resident PMETs increased by 380,000; and the number of EP and S Pass holders increased by 50,000. In growth sectors, such as finance, infocomm and professional services, resident PMETs increased by 190,000; and the number of EP and S Pass holders increased by 20,000. But more importantly, over the decade, resident income has also increased by 21.6% in real terms.

So, we must not view residents and foreigners as a zero-sum game and continue to draw divides. Thriving businesses with access to complementary foreign talent will not only lead to more job creation, but also improve overall wage outcomes, as businesses expand and improve their productivity. By growing our economic pie, we will be better able to secure positive outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mr Giam.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Can I ask the Minister, what percentage of the 88,400 total employment growth in 2023 were for PMET roles? And of these, what percentage went to Singapore Citizens and, in particular, older Singaporean PMETs?

I thank the Member for that question. Of the increase in total employment – the 88,400 – there was an increase of 4,900 residents and 18,700 EP holders and S Pass holders. So, that 64,800, that 77.6%, are actually in sectors or jobs that our Singaporeans do not typically want to go into. So, I think the right comparison would be that 4,900 residents versus the 18,700 EP and S Pass residents.

So, if you compare that increase in employment growth attributable to that segment that I just talked about. Let me repeat that. Residents versus EP and S Pass holders, there were 4,900 jobs for residents versus 18,700 for EP and S Pass holders. The key sectors with the largest increase in employment for the EP were admin and support services, food services and retail trade. For the S Pass, the key sectors were process, financial and insurance services and marine.

The growth last year in EP and S Pass holders exceeded growth in resident employment, as this category of EP and S Pass holders, the non-resident PMET employment is still recovering from the pandemic. The total number of EP and S Pass holders was 393,700 in December 2019 – this was the year before COVID-19. And we ended last year with 383,900 – this was in December 2023.

If you compare over the few years that I talked about, that 100,000 jobs that we safeguarded, as a result of Government efforts to safeguard jobs during the pandemic, our resident employment increased every year since 2019 and the proportion of PMETs amongst employed residents increased in tandem as well. As I have shared time and again, the various COVID-19 measures that we introduced actually safeguarded resident employment during that period to maintain high employment rates. While EP and S Pass holder proportions dipped significantly and it is still recovering back to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Hence, the larger proportion of growth attributed to EP and S Pass holders last year did not affect PMET resident employment at all. I hope that clarifies.

Mr Giam.

I thank the Minister for his reply to my supplementary question, but I do not think it actually addresses the question I was asking. He is comparing the 4,900 residents with the 18,700 EP and S Pass holders. But the 4,900 consists of all the Singaporean growth, all the resident workforce growth, not just for PMETs.

So, if we are to assume that EP and S Pass holders are PMETs, what is the percentage of the 4,900 that goes to Singaporeans?

I listened carefully to the Minister's reply and I understand what he is trying to get at. But given the substantial Government expenditure used for job creation in Singapore, including the Economic Development Board's efforts to attract foreign direct investments (FDIs), the extensive tax incentives given to multinational companies (MNCs), if most of these jobs continue to be filled year after year, mostly by foreigners, is the Minister concerned that these Government expenditures appear to be disproportionately benefiting MNCs and foreign workers, in particular, foreign professionals, over Singaporean workers?

Mr Speaker, as I shared earlier on, on a like-for-like comparison, you need to look at that 4,900 versus that 18,700 jobs in the same sectors. Because, really, more than 77% of last year's employment from the construction, process and manufacturing sectors, are typically jobs that Singaporeans do not want to be part of.

So, really, if you want to compare the type of jobs that Singaporeans would prefer to be in and, as I have shared earlier on, our focus is on enabling, helping and facilitating every Singaporean who wants to choose a particular job or role, will be able to do so. So, look at that particular sector and for the record, in terms of the total EP and S Pass holders, it is still about 32% of our overall workforce.

I think to say that we have expended significant Government expenditures, in terms of growing the economy and how many of these jobs end up with residents, I think that is myopic. Why do I say that?

Today, if you look at the overall statistics that we have presented in our Labour Market Report, our long-term unemployment is at 0.7%, 0.8%. And how we classify long-term unemployment is anyone who is unemployed for above six months. Based on a snapshot, our resident unemployment is about 2.7%. So, really, that 2% is churn. Most of them, if they so wish to do so, would find a job within six months. So, it is churn. So, for all intent and purposes, we are at very close to full employment.

We have also shared at the Budget, Committee of Supply, and Deputy Prime Minister has also shared in his Budget Statement, that for us to continue to grow, we cannot just grow the workforce indefinitely. We need to also grow our productivity and our value added.

Businesses, when they thrive, as the economy grows, they need access to workforce; they need access to workers; they need access to foreign talent; they need access to local talent. In a situation where our labour market is so tight, how do we ensure that our startups, our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), our large local enterprises and the MNCs, who make significant FDIs here in Singapore, can continue to grow and tap and leverage on the ecosystem, especially when we are already at close to full employment?

Is the Member, therefore, suggesting that, because of the fact that we are at full employment, we do not, or we put a dampener on our businesses' ability to grow? I think that is very short-sighted.

I hope that sets the perspective as to what we are thinking. Today, we are at a pivotal moment, with all of the transformation, with the significant disruptions happening, this is our opportunity to work together, to make sure that we continue to create and sustain a thriving metropolis for our successive generations.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his enthusiastic response to our questions on Singapore manpower policy and all that. However, I would like to highlight, like what I have done a few years ago, during the job surplus —

Are you asking a supplementary question?

Yes.

Please just ask the supplementary question.

So, as I have said and as I have highlighted in the jobs debate a few years back, the conclusions that the Minister is trying to present is not complete.

Mr Leong, I would really like you to ask the supplementary question. Do not make a mini speech here.

Yes. So, does he agree that his conclusions are not complete, as long as the jobs statistics do not separate the Singaporeans from the permanent residents (PRs), because there are these changes within the resident employment that are not completely transparent to us?

Mr Speaker, I think the Member, Mr Leong, has decided to rehash the divide of "us versus them", "Singapore Citizens versus PRs". Again, I think the fundamental answer to the Member, Mr Gerald Giam's, question has been addressed.

If he wants to start another debate, which we have done through Ministerial Statements delivered before, I suggest he files a separate Parliamentary Question.

13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether he can make public the content and materials of the Character and Citizenship Education lesson on the Israel-Hamas conflict; and (b) whether any teacher has declined to deliver a lesson and, if so, how is such a situation dealt with.

14 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education (a) whether primary school students are being taught about the Israel-Hamas conflict, either in the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum or otherwise; (b) if so, at which levels are students taught about the conflict; and (c) how are the contents differentiated among the different levels to take into account the different maturity levels of the students.

15 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Education (a) with many teachers implementing the Character and Citizenship Education lesson package, how will the Ministry ensure a safe space for students to share diverse views and arrive at their own conclusions on complex issues; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that students realise the importance of looking at such situations through the lens of Singapore's national interests and the need to maintain our social, racial and religious harmony.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the next three Parliamentary Questions together, please?

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these questions have been addressed in my response on the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) Lesson on the Israel-Hamas Conflict at Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Committee of Supply (COS) Debate on 4 March 2024, which can be found on MOE's website.

I understand that Mr Leong was absent during my speech and our subsequent discussion, while Ms Hazel Poa was around. So, with your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the transcript of my response. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGParl app.

Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may continue, Ms Hazel Poa may refer to paragraphs 40 to 41 in the handout, on making the lesson materials public; and paragraph 9 as well as paragraphs 18 to 21, on the response of teachers and how we are supporting our teachers to deliver the lessons. Mr Leong Mun Wai may also refer to paragraphs 13 to 16 on how the lesson materials are customised for different levels of students.

Mr Sharael Taha may refer to paragraph 36 on how teachers ensure a safe space for discussion of such issues, and paragraphs 28 to 31 and paragraph 51 on the lesson's intent for students to learn how to maintain our religious and racial harmony.

Mr Leong.

Sir, in our Parliamentary Question, we did request for the Ministry to release the teaching materials for the CCE lesson, but the Minister had replied that he will not release the slides in his reply during the COS, I think. We would like to, first, express deep disappointment that the slides in question, which form the primary teaching resource for the CCE class, have not been released to this House or to the public.

So, my first question is: despite what the Minister has said, how is it justifiable not to release the CCE lesson slides to the public, when the materials had already been imparted to our children? This is my first question.

My second question, as an extension of that, can we have the Government's commitment that all teaching materials for CCE in the future, should be made available to the public, so that parents would know what has been taught to their children?

I have actually made an effort to go to the bookstore and got the textbook for CCE for Primary 6 students. From the content of the textbook, you cannot imagine that a complex and controversial current issue, like the Israel-Hamas conflict, will be taught to our children. So, I urge the Government, in future, to make the material transparent and available to the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the three supplementary questions are related. And let me just say this. I have made a commitment to this House during my reply, where I said the following: the slides alone do not fully communicate how we teach the subject and we welcome parents with concerns to come and see the teachers, who will explain to them how the lesson is conducted.

This is much better than just looking at the deck of slides without explanation. That is our stance. And this is how we intend to make available our teaching materials, including explanations to parents who are concerned.

Mr Sharael Taha.

Mr Speaker, I do share a differing view from Mr Leong. He said our children should not be exposed to and learn from such topics when it is a bit more complex. I would like to thank the Minister for his clarifications that the CCE lesson is aimed at allowing students to share and receive diverse views, and arrive at their own conclusion on complex issues – because they are already exposed to it from the social media. I am certain that there would be even more complex issues in future which our students would be exposed to and we would have to teach them to approach these in a way that maintains our social, religious and racial harmony in Singapore.

So, my supplementary question to the Minister is, given the threat of worsening geopolitical tensions, whether it is China-US tensions or Taiwan, or conflicts against races or religions in other countries, how will the Ministry decide when the different issues will be addressed as part of the CCE lessons? Would it be useful for students to discuss these topics before the tensions are significantly heightened?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Sharael Taha. Indeed, we share his views that this will not be the only sensitive, emotive issue that our students, and even our population, will come across in the days, weeks and years to come.

That is the reason why we feel the importance to conduct the CCE lessons – to help our people understand their emotions, the diversity of perspectives within our society, help our students to learn to verify the information that they come across that is widely available on social media, help them to understand our national priorities, positions and interests. Most importantly, help them to take constructive and positive actions for the sake of our cohesion and harmony. And these are the reasons why we conduct the CCE lesson.

So, I fully agree with Mr Sharael Taha. This may not be the one and only sensitive and emotive issue that we would have to deal with in the coming years. In fact, we can fully expect, as Mr Sharael Taha has mentioned, that there will be other equally, if not more challenging circumstances that we will have to deal with and allow our students a safe space to understand their emotions, grapple with the issues, verify the information they come across and to take positive actions.

Fundamentally, in this House, we have to consider this: do we agree that this is an emotive and sensitive issue that can fray our social fabric and cohesion? Fundamentally, if we believe that, then do we agree that we have a leadership responsibility to guide our people, especially our young, to not allow this to affect our social cohesion and harmony? If we agree to both of these points, then we welcome constructive suggestions on how we can better support our teachers, principals who have stepped forward to execute this challenging task for our nation.

And I would like to end this off by sharing a vignette from my own sharing with my principals and CCE teachers when I personally, together with Second Minister Maliki, conducted the discussions with them in preparation for this module.

One of my senior educators rose and spoke and reflected on this after we had an hour or more of sharing. She asked, "Minister, why is it that whenever something like that happens, you have to come and tell us and share with us? How long will it take us to develop those instincts to react together as one united Singapore, that we will not be pulled apart by different forces, from different directions?"

It is poignant moment. I assured her that I did not expect – and I do not expect – all my educators to be experts in foreign policies; and it will take us time, and perhaps generations, for us to reach this stage, whereby we can respond as one united Singapore.

But to do that, we have to first understand and appreciate that we are different. We have different backgrounds. We have different perspectives. And while we may be different in our outlook and perspectives, we can all share the same goal to unite and not let others divide us. That while we may not have a common past, we can all share a common future, with a shared sense of ethos of what it means to be Singaporean and not to be torn apart by other competing forces, which as Mr Sharael Taha said, there will be many more to come, perhaps closer to home.

For Members who are interested, you may want to read a recent article by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. It talks about identity geopolitics, how different identities threaten to pull different communities and societies apart, in support of their respective causes.

Ms Hazel Poa.

The Minister has said that instead of releasing the slides, MOE would prefer to explain directly to the parents. Can the Minister let us know, how many schools have organised such dialogue sessions?

And secondly, I understand that the CCE materials were curated with the help of the other agencies, like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), can I ask the Minister whether there were any prior consultations, given the context of this issue, with community and religious leaders, as well as prior consultation with the teachers who are to deliver these lessons?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first supplementary question, the offer stands. All our schools are prepared to engage parents who are concerned with the material. And so far, some schools have received such requests. Most of them have not received these requests. For those schools that have received these requests, they have engaged the parents.

On the second question about consultation, yes, indeed, MOE consult various stakeholders, but I think we have to be clear when we use the word "consult", what do we mean? Do we mean to consult to do or not to do, or do we mean to consult on the content of what to do? And I can be sure, we all in this House can be sure, that in any consultation there will be a diversity of views of to do or not to do. Ultimately, consultation does not take away the leadership responsibility for us to decide what is right and necessary to do for our own society and our children. So, yes, we consult but, ultimately, we need to make that leadership decision. And that is our responsibility.

Second, on whether we consult on the content, as I have said, in my parliamentary explanation on 4 March, this is not a history lesson and we welcome suggestions from all Members on how we can make the material more targeted, more suitable. But I will be the first one to admit that I think none of us, none of us, not even historians, will be able to come up with what would be considered a fair representation from everyone's perspective – and that is not our goal.

As I have mentioned before, in my media interview, we are not here to adjudicate between the right and wrong of a conflict that has happened for many years, decades, if not centuries. Each and every one of us will judge the material from our own perspective and come to our conclusion to what is fair or not.

If there are constructive suggestions on how we can simplify the material to make it simpler, better, we welcome that. But I would caution against thinking that any one of us can come up with a set of materials that will satisfy everybody. And that is not our goal.

Our goal is to understand that such differences exist and they have an emotive pull on different segments of our population in different directions. And our goal is to ask ourselves how to help our children navigate through these challenges, come to their conclusions, but, most importantly, not lose the peace and harmony that we have in this land. And it is a work that is in progress, a work that is very much in progress.

Mr Leong, last supplementary question.

Sir, every time we raise questions that may not be in line with what the Government wants, we are always accused of being divisive. In this case, the Minister for Education just said that we are not being united.

But I think what we are trying to do here, can I ask the Minister, from the response the Minister had given to us on this issue, does it reflect enough transparency and also clarity on the process of how the materials are being decided? We are not particularly against any topics to be raised actually, as long as there is a defined process. What is the expert panel that decide on the topic, for example, and after deciding on the topic, why can the material not be made just transparent? Why must we ask the parents to come to the school to ask for it? All these materials are taught to our children and they ought to be 100% transparent?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my first response to Mr Leong's first comment is, "Please do not twist our words". I have never accused anyone in this House of being divisive. I said we have different views in our population and our job, as part of the CCE lessons, is to help people understand the differences, manage those differences, respect those differences, do it sensitively and work towards a more united future. That is what I said.

On the second issue to Mr Leong's question, MOE is being more than transparent. We are not only prepared to show the parents the material, we are prepared to explain to the parents how the materials are used, rather than to just give a deck of slides which can be taken out of context. So, if anything, we are going out of our way to assure parents how we conduct the lessons, rather than just giving a set of slides, as has been proven in the previous episode where people took the slides out of context or took the slides selectively and made comments on it. So, I think the correct perspective is that MOE has been more than transparent in allowing our students and children not only to see the materials but also to explain to their parents how the lessons are conducted.

16 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Prime Minister (a) when will the Shared Responsibility Framework for phishing scams be released; (b) what is the take-up rate of the Money Lock feature offered by our local banks, broken down by ages of bank customers; and (c) whether the MAS will make it mandatory for all banking institutions to participate in this initiative in the near future.

Sir, the Government will take into account suggestions and feedback received from the public consultation on the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) that closed on 20 December 2023. We aim to publish our response to the consultation and implement the SRF later this year.

For Money Lock, Money Lock gives customers added protection against digital scams by blocking online access to a portion of their funds. Since the three local banks launched Money Lock in November, more than 78,000 Money Lock accounts have been set up, with over S$6.6 billion of savings set aside in March 2024. Among customers who have used Money Lock, those aged 50 and above make up 44%, those between 30 and 50 years old comprise 41%, and those under 30 years of age form 15%. Local banks will continue to raise awareness and encourage adoption amongst their customer base across all demographic segments.

Other major retail banks will introduce Money Lock by mid-2024 and the vast majority of retail depositors will have the Money Lock option available to them. Hence, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has no plans to make Money Lock mandatory for all banking institutions.

Mr Choo.

Mr Speaker, I thank Minister of State Alvin Tan for his response. I have two supplementary questions. The first one is on the consultation. Clearly, MAS has done a very wide consultation. I would like to ask what has been the approaches taken by other jurisdictions with regard to this issue? What has worked and what will be incorporated for Singapore?

The second one would be on Money Lock. When I spoke to many of my residents, they heard about this from me and they said it is a great thing. But this is the first time they are hearing it. So, how can we expand the awareness amongst the people who need it most which are likely to be the seniors, who might not be very Internet or digitally savvy?

Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. The second question is that we are enhancing, MAS together with the banks, to increase awareness and encourage adoption of Money Lock across not just the local banks but, as I said earlier on, by mid-2024 other banks will also incorporate Money Lock. So, there is a concerted effort to raise awareness and to increase adoption of Money Lock.

On the SRF consultation ended on 20 December, we received a number of very good consultation responses. I would like to highlight a couple of interesting points.

The first is that the consultation responses that we received were very thoughtful. Some had asked whether we could expand the SRF to include more scam variants, more entities – that is entirely reasonable and we talked about that in this House.

But there is also an interesting number of responses by members of public who submitted the consultation responses that talked about how do you factor consumers' responsibility and the contributing role in determining the payouts. And in this case, how do you encourage consumer responsibility and also to reduce moral hazards? I think this is a very important point that responsibilities must be shared and I think that is the essence of the SRF.

At the same time, we are studying about how other jurisdictions are deploying their different approaches to scams, including different shared responsibilities. The United Kingdom (UK) is one, Australia is one. If you look at the UK's contingent reimbursement model, the number of Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud cases had increased by 34% since they implemented the CRM compared to the same period in 2022.

So, I raised this just to share that different approaches have to fit different jurisdictions and what we are doing is taking a very concerted, careful study approach so that we do not have or come into unintended consequences that will exacerbate moral hazard, but bearing in mind that we want to protect consumers in the process as well.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I like to thank Minister of State for his answer. Can Minister of State reassure the House that in the development of the SRF, there will also be consideration to what has been debated in Parliament as well as suggestions that have been raised? That is my first question, because a number of Members have raised suggestions over the past few years.

The second question to Minister of State is will the framework also adopt a forward-looking horizon scan of emerging scam modalities? And I say this because two years ago, in this House, I and some others talked about the risk of deepfake scams coming through and today we see around the world the rise of AI voice cloning and deepfake attacks on public figures, replicating public figures and even the cloning of people's voices which is an emerging technology.

Will the SRF consider all this because moral hazard sometimes is not a step off a cliff that people fall off or get cut off by? It can sometimes also exist in a continuum of forced, or unforced errors based on circumstances and what public understanding is of the scams out there.

Sir, I would like to assure Dr Tan Wu Meng that these, in fact, are the types of feedback and suggestions, including by the Member himself and Mr Desmond Choo and other Members of this House to look at the rapidly evolving nature of scam typologies.

We focus the SRF on phishing, but we are well aware that malware scams have also contributed to the number of scams that Singaporeans have encountered. And so, we will factor all of these in and that is why the consultation had also, as I mentioned earlier on, looked at suggestions on whether we could expand the kind of scam variants or the entities in the SRF. But, at the same time, as we combat this rapidly evolving scam nature and different typologies, we need to take a suite of approaches towards combating this.

The SRF is one way in which we will ascribe responsibility using a waterfall approach. And I said earlier on that we are exploring other jurisdictions' different approaches. Not every jurisdiction's approach will fit and we need to study that carefully.

But at the same time, to Member Desmond Choo's point, Money Lock is another feature that we are trying to encourage people to adopt to safeguard a portion of your funds. We also have a very strong consolidated public education and public awareness campaign that is one of the best inoculations against scams. Also, at your device level, some of the banks have ensured that there is no side-loading of apps.

The key thing here is for all of us to take an upstream approach, be aware of scams, look out for scams and also to encourage your friends, family members to be very much wary of this.

So, thank you for Members' contributions to this very important topic. We will factor all of these into consideration when we roll out SRF which is a "live" document, and also, put in a significant amount of effort to raise awareness and to prevent scams from happening.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.

[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.]

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

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

The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2024 makes amendments to address the issue of wrongful charging of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on fees charged by the Government and statutory bodies, excluding Town Councils, which I will refer to collectively as "Government fees".

As Members are aware, Ministry of Finance (MOF) announced on 14 February 2024 that GST charged on 18 Government fees across six agencies would be refunded. This arose from an internal review of regulatory and ancillary fees that charge GST, where we discovered that GST should not have been charged on these 18 fees, as they are regulatory in nature.

Such regulatory fees should not be subject to GST as they are imposed for the purposes of control and regulation. In contrast, fees for provision of services, such as for the rental of public sports facilities, should be subject to GST. This approach ensures parity in tax treatment, where services that can potentially be provided by, or outsourced to the private or non-Government sector, are subject to GST. Some countries which levy GST also adopt similar principles.

We have, thus far, left it to agencies to self-assess and determine what constitutes a regulatory fee, with guidance provided through Government circulars. However, agencies may not always be clear where to draw the line. This is not ideal and can give rise to wrongful charging of GST, as was the case for the 18 fees.

This is why, in response to several Members' earlier Parliamentary Questions on how the Government would take steps to prevent this problem from recurring in future, I explained that MOF will amend the GST Act to simplify and clarify the rules around when GST should be charged on Government fees.

Sir, we will centrally prescribe a list of non-taxable Government fees. Fees in the non-taxable list would include those for applications to confer approval for the conduct of a regulated activity. For example, applications for professional licences and their licence renewal fees will be non-taxable, as they confer applicants the right to practise in the regulated profession. This would also include the 18 regulatory fees that we are refunding. All other fees that are not part of this list will be subject to GST. This is provided for under clause 2 of the Bill.

As part of this change in legislative approach, moving forward, MOF and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) will henceforth work closely with agencies to assess their fees instead of allowing self-assessment by agencies.

MOF had earlier reviewed all the regulatory and ancillary fees that currently charge GST and announced in February the refund of GST on 18 fees, where GST was wrongly charged. We are now working with agencies on the remaining regulatory and ancillary fees, which do not charge GST. There are in total more than 1,700 such Government fees, which MOF is in the midst of reviewing.

If Parliament approves this Bill, the initial list of non-taxable fees will be published in the Gazette in end-April, when the Bill comes into force. MOF will continue to work with agencies to progressively prescribe their regulatory fees in the non-taxable list and we aim to complete this by September 2024.

All fees that are not prescribed in the non-taxable list, will be subject to GST. There are three categories of such fees.

The first category, which is the vast majority of fees, comprises fees for services provided by the Government, which are clearly subject to GST and are already charged with GST today. There is no change in the treatment of these fees. Examples are fees for the rental of public sports facilities which I mentioned earlier.

The second category comprises fees that are charged with GST today, but where there has been inconsistency in the interpretation of the law by agencies. Let me give an example.

Agencies may charge fees for examinations that an individual must undertake prior to being licensed as a practising professional in a regulated industry. Some agencies have assessed such examination fees as taxable, whereas others have not – arising from differing interpretations of the GST Act. Based on our policy intent, as I have clarified above, such examination fees should attract GST. Only the eventual licence fee that confers applicants with the regulatory approval to practise should not be taxable.

The charging of GST on these fees is in line with our clarified policy intent but is susceptible to legal challenge under the current GST Act. Hence, for agencies that have been charging GST on such fees, we will validate these past GST collections, should they not have been made in accordance with the current GST Act, to ensure consistency between the legal position and the clarified policy intent, which is to subject these fees to GST. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for this.

For these two categories of fees, there is no change to the status quo. These fees are already charged with GST today and will continue to be charged with GST.

The third category are fees that are not charged with GST today, but should be charged with GST moving forward, based on our clarified policy intent. These include examination fees, which some agencies are currently not charging GST. Other examples include inspection fees prior to the licensing and conduct of certain business operations. We estimate that there are more than a hundred such examination and inspection-related fees.

For this third category of fees where GST has to be charged, the Government will help to minimise the impact on the public. We will absorb the GST on these fees in the first instance and impose a freeze on these fees until end-2025. Hence, all affected fees will not increase immediately as a result of the amendments.

MOF has separately asked the agencies involved to review their fees and charges and to consider ways where they can streamline processes or reduce costs. We will work closely with agencies on this, to review if the above-mentioned fees may be reduced or even removed. If there are unavoidable cost increases, then agencies would have to raise their fees. But they will do so only after end-2025 and will ensure that any increases are phased-in gradually, taking into consideration the impact on affected stakeholders.

Mr Speaker, we are proposing a clearer and more robust approach going forward, one that ensures that the correct GST treatment on Government fees by centralising the assessment and making clear the list of non-taxable fees via legislation. This will provide greater clarity and certainty to everyone on the GST treatment for Government fees. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to treat all taxable supplies made by public agencies as supplies which are made in the course or furtherance of a business. Notwithstanding this, the Minister for Finance has the power to disapply the provisions of the GST Act to certain prescribed taxable supplies made by public agencies.

Under clause 4 of the Bill, or the validation clause, every sum purportedly imposed as GST, before the date of publication of the new Act, on any supply made in connection with the performance of a regulatory function by a public agency, is deemed to be and always to have been, validly imposed. Accordingly, clause 4 goes on to say that no legal proceedings may be instituted on or after 7 March 2024 in respect of the imposition of any of these taxes. The provision is then accompanied by a Schedule, which sets out a list of supplies to which clause 4, the validation clause, does not apply. This list includes details of the 18 different types of supplies which relate to the sums of GST wrongfully collected by Government agencies as announced by MOF on 14 February. So, to recap, these were regulatory fees identified to have been charged with GST wrongly and which needed to be refunded. To summarise, while clause 4 validates past GST charges on regulatory fees, the specific supplies set out in the Schedule are not shielded by the validation clause.

My clarifications relate to this validation clause. Primarily, what is the purpose of the validation clause and why has it been included?

Following the Government's internal review last November, which identified inconsistencies in the application of GST on certain Government fees, why is there a need to deem that all previously collected GST in relation to regulatory fees has, in fact, been validly imposed? The new provision also states that no legal proceedings may be instituted outside of the transactions referred to in the Schedule.

As MOF has itself mentioned, over 5,000 different types of fees are charged by Government agencies and accordingly, is it possible that other erroneous transactions could have taken place in the past? And if so, what recourse will there be for persons affected? If this possibility exists, is it then appropriate to retrospectively validate these errors and limit the availability of legal remedies?

Generally speaking, where a GST-registered person wrongly collects an amount of GST with no reasonable excuse or through negligence, that person would have committed an offence and this is one which is punishable by a fine, or prison term or both. The Comptroller of GST has the power to consider the circumstances of each case. But the fact remains that GST-registered persons are held to a high bar when it comes to the wrongful collection of the tax. While these two kinds of situations are not exactly the same, the main principle that we can take away is that the wrongful or mistaken collection of GST is indeed a very serious matter.

As the Minister has explained previously, each Government agency, like any GST-registered business, has to assess whether its fees should be GST-chargeable whenever a fee is introduced or revised. Agencies did so based on the law, with guidance from MOF and IRAS, but the GST Act is also a complex piece of legislation. Mistakes in its interpretation can happen. This is understandable and it is laudable that the Government has not shied away from making tough decisions about being transparent whenever errors are made. As the Minister has said, the new proposed amendments aim to clarify GST treatment for regulatory and non-regulatory fees moving forward. To be clear, I do believe this a is a good development that will minimise errors in interpretation moving forward. That being said, I would be grateful if the Minister could share the intentions and thought process behind the inclusion of the validation clause at clause 4 of this Bill. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Minister Chee.

Mr Speaker, I would like to start by thanking Ms Usha Chandradas for her support for the Bill. She asked about the purpose of validation clause and whether there were other erroneous transactions in the past.

Sir, as I explained earlier in my Second Reading speech, we are validating the collection of fees where there is inconsistency in the interpretation of the law by agencies on whether GST should be charged. The charging of GST on these fees is consistent with our policy intent as clarified, but is susceptible to legal challenge under the current GST Act. We are, therefore, validating the past collections of GST on these fees to clarify the policy intent and legal position should they not have been made in accordance with the current GST Act. For the 18 fees where the collection of GST was not consistent with our policy intent, we are refunding the GST collected to affected stakeholders.

As Ms Usha has noted, the GST Act is indeed a complex piece of legislation. Interpretation and application by agencies on the ground can be challenging. This is why we have proposed the amendments in this Bill to ensure consistency in the policy intent, legal basis and agencies' practices relating to collections of GST on Government fees.

Any other clarifications for the Minister?

[(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. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat]. (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 suspend the Sitting and I will take the Chair at 2.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 1.49 pm until 2.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 2.05 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

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

This Bill introduces three sets of amendments: the first strengthens our levers against scammers; the second enhances the efficacy of Home Team operations; and the third facilitates and safeguards Yellow Ribbon Singapore's (YRSG) operations. I will elaborate on each in turn.

Sir, scams remain a problem around the world. Singaporeans are not spared. There were over 46,000 cases in 2023, a nearly 50% increase from 2022. Scam losses fell slightly but are still high. At the Global Fraud Summit which I attended last month, other countries shared that they were facing similar challenges. Scams have also skyrocketed in their jurisdictions.

We have implemented multiple measures to combat scams. For example, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has been working with telecommunication companies to block all incoming calls from overseas that spoof local numbers. As a result, the volume of such calls attempted has dropped. In 2022, there were approximately 970 million of such attempts. In 2023, there were 18 million attempts, a far smaller number but all were blocked.

In 2023, IMDA introduced the SMS Sender ID Registry, which requires organisations to register the alphanumeric Sender IDs which they want to use in SMS communications with their customers. SMSes using non-registered Sender IDs will be marked as “Likely-SCAM”.

In the three months after its implementation, scams due to SMSes fell by 70%. As a result, phishing, which was the main type of scam perpetrated through SMSes, has claimed fewer victims. Amounts lost to phishing scams have also fallen.

With these measures in place, scammers have quickly changed their tactics and pivoted to using local SIM cards to reach prospective victims. People who receive scam calls and SMSes from locally registered numbers may think they are legitimate and fall prey. In 2023, over 23,000 local mobile lines were involved in scams and other cybercrimes. This is four times the number in 2021. In 2023, about $400 million were lost from scam and cybercrime cases involving local mobile lines. This is three times the amount lost in 2021.

Local numbers have also been used by scammers to set up WhatsApp and Telegram accounts to target victims or receive their monies via PayNow. This comes on top of their being used for other crimes, such as unlicensed moneylending.

To enforce against scammers who abuse local SIM cards, the Police has worked with foreign counterparts as these scammers are mainly based overseas. In February 2023, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) worked with the Royal Malaysia Police to conduct simultaneous raids at three apartment complexes in Johor. They arrested 12 Malaysians for their involvement in using six prepaid Singapore SIM cards to perpetrate fake friend calls. These were scams targeting Singaporeans. The syndicate is believed to have been involved in more than 360 reports, with more than $1.3 million of losses.

But enforcement after the fact is scant comfort for the victims. We want to go upstream, to prevent the scam from happening in the first place, by strengthening deterrence and accountability in the use of local SIM cards. Hence, clause 3 of this Bill introduces new offences to target three groups of people who misuse local SIM cards to facilitate scams.

First, irresponsible subscribers. These are people who give away their local SIM cards or provide their particulars to others to be used to sign up for local SIM cards. Often, they do so to earn a quick buck. Based on a sampling study, close to 80% of local SIM cards misused for crime were registered with another person's particulars.

Every SIM card in the hands of a scammer is a weapon. Armed with even just one SIM card, a scammer can do a great deal of harm. In a 2021 case, a single local mobile line was linked to 48 job scam reports, with losses amounting to approximately $1 million.

In most of the cases, the Police have faced difficulties in taking these irresponsible subscribers to task. Current laws put the onus on the Police to prove that the subscriber knowingly gave away their local SIM cards for unlawful purposes. This is hard to prove. Irresponsible subscribers can easily claim that they were unaware of the consequences of their actions.

For example, in 2023, a subscriber signed up for 11 postpaid SIM cards and sold them to a friend and claimed that his friend said the mobile lines were needed to create accounts on cryptocurrency platforms. Six out of the 11 mobile lines were later found to have been used in scam cases. When interviewed, the subscriber claimed that he did not know that the mobile lines would be used for unlawful purposes. As there was no evidence to suggest otherwise, the Police could not take any action against him.

The Bill will introduce new offences in sections 37B and 37C of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, or abbreviated as MOA, targeting irresponsible subscribers. It will be an offence for a person to hand over local SIM cards registered with his own particulars to another person; or allow his own particulars to be used to sign up for a local SIM card by another person. A person will be liable, if he did so, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe, that the local SIM card would be used for unlawful purposes.

To address the challenge that the Police face today in proving knowledge or criminal intent, an irresponsible subscriber will be deemed liable in the following scenarios: one, the irresponsible subscriber gave away the local SIM card for any gain; two, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the identity and physical location of the recipient of the local SIM card; or three, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the recipient's purpose for obtaining the local SIM card.

These scenarios are based on actual cases. With these new laws, a person in these scenarios will no longer be able to simply claim ignorance as a defence. The law puts the onus on the person to prove that he was unaware.

To be clear, Sir, it is not our intent to criminalise people who give away their local SIM cards for legitimate purposes. For example, some people register SIM cards in their names for family members' use, including elderly parents and children. It is also not our intent to penalise people who were genuinely tricked into giving up their credentials, which were subsequently used to register for local SIM cards.

The second group we are targeting are middlemen involved in procuring or providing local SIM cards to scam syndicates. The Police have caught people transferring or possessing local SIM cards not registered with their own particulars. In most of the instances, they were doing so without legitimate reason. Similar to irresponsible subscribers, the Police have faced difficulties in prosecuting such middlemen, as it is difficult to prove that they had intended to abet an offence.

In one case, the Police identified a middleman who collected fraudulently registered local SIM cards from an accomplice and then sent the SIM cards to scammers in Malaysia. At the point of arrest, the middleman was found to be in possession of 290 prepaid SIM cards that were fraudulently registered. In total, the middleman was found to have purchased over 1,000 prepaid SIM cards that were fraudulently registered, between 2010 and 2021. Although the middleman was initially charged in Court, he was eventually given a discharge amounting to an acquittal, due to evidential difficulties.

The Bill introduces offences in sections 39D and 39F under the MOA to target middlemen. They would be liable for either: first, receiving or possessing local SIM cards, with intent to use or supply them for unlawful purposes; second, supplying local SIM cards, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that they would be used for unlawful purposes. These provisions will not only cover local SIM cards registered with other persons' particulars, but will also cover unregistered local SIM cards, as these can easily be activated by scammers using stolen credentials.

To address the evidentiary challenge that Police face today, a person who receives, supplies or possesses such local SIM cards may be deemed liable, without the Prosecution having to prove knowledge or criminal intent, if the local SIM cards were used for crime; or 11 or more local SIM cards were found in the middleman's possession.

Specifically for dealing with local SIM cards registered with other persons' particulars, a person may be deemed liable in three scenarios: one, he received or supplied the local SIM card for any gain; two, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the identity and physical location of the recipient of the local SIM card; three, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the recipient's purpose for obtaining the local SIM card.

The Bill also introduces a new section 39E in the MOA to deal with people who buy, sell or rent a local SIM card registered with another person's particulars. As this involves an exchange of money, it is more serious than simply receiving or supplying local SIM cards.

There is no reason why someone other than a contracted retailer should be trading local SIM cards registered in another person's particulars, in exchange for money or other benefits. As such, the provision is drafted such that the Prosecution would not need to prove criminal intent in making out an offence.

It is not our intent to catch those who receive, supply or possess local SIM cards for lawful purposes. For instance, employers holding on to SIM cards intended for their employees. So, if they make an explanation, then this would be taken into consideration.

The third group of people we are targeting is errant retailers. IMDA requires mobile service providers to implement measures to prevent fraudulent registrations. The mobile service providers may appoint third-party retailers to sell SIM cards and perform registrations, and subject these retailers to similar requirements by way of contractual obligations.

For example, retailers are required to verify the identity of subscribers by visually checking the subscribers against their original IDs. They are also required to scan subscribers' IDs instead of manually keying in the subscribers' personal particulars. Mobile service providers may be in breach of the regulatory obligations, if they or their appointed retailers had lapses in implementing these requirements.

The vast majority of retailers adhere to IMDA’s requirements. However, a number have used stolen or false credentials to register local SIM cards, which they then sell to scammers. In a sampling study of around 1,400 local SIM cards used in scams in the second half of 2023, we found that about 65% of such SIM cards were sold by just nine retailers. In a recent case, the Police arrested four handphone retailers who had used the particulars of unsuspecting subscribers to register post-paid SIM cards and then sold these SIM cards to customers, likely scammers, who wanted to conceal their identity.

Such errant retailers should be held accountable. Not only do they tarnish the reputation of their peers, their actions cause many victims to suffer losses.

However, there is no offence that specifically deals with these retailers. Under today’s regime, these retailers might simply lose their contracts with the mobile service provider. Stronger deterrence is needed if we are to prevent such retailers from helping scammers easily acquire fraudulently registered SIM cards.

As such, the Bill introduces a new section 39G to target errant retailers. The new section makes it a criminal offence to facilitate fraudulent registrations knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the local SIM card would be used for unlawful purposes. Errant retailers may also be liable if the local SIM card is proven to have subsequently been used for unlawful purposes.

The new criminal offence will complement our current regulatory levers and allow heavier punishments to be imposed on errant retailers. This includes imprisonment sentences for the employees who were involved in the fraudulent registrations. The vast majority of law-abiding retailers need not be concerned. The offence does not affect them.

Let me explain the other aspects of the new offences.

The penalties for the new SIM card offences will be pegged to those for the misuse of Singpass credentials under the Computer Misuse Act. The offences for irresponsible registrants will carry a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both. The offences of receiving, supplying and possessing local SIM cards and facilitating fraudulent registrations of local SIM cards, will carry a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both, for a first offence. For a second or subsequent offence, the penalty will be a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

All the new offences will also apply to corporations and unincorporated associations, such as partnerships and societies. However, as such entities cannot be subject to imprisonment, the maximum fines for these entities will be twice the amount for individuals. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces standard provisions for the attribution of liability for MOA offences committed by entities.

The Bill also introduces a new section 39H to the MOA to allow the new SIM card offences to apply extraterritorially, as long as there is a proven link to harm in Singapore. This is necessary, as most scam syndicates operate from overseas. The new section 39I will provide for all local SIM card offences to be arrestable.

Next, the Bill amends the MOA to allow the transmission of false messages for certain legitimate purposes, such as to facilitate the conduct of simulated phishing exercises to enhance awareness and vigilance against scams.

Currently, section 14D of the MOA – which can be traced back to the Telecommunications Act 1965 – criminalises the transmission of a message which the person knows is false or fabricated. Because of how the provision was drafted, any transmission of a false or fabricated message could be caught, even if the transmission was for legitimate purposes, like the prevention of crime.

The most pertinent example today would be simulated phishing exercises.

Today, many organisations conduct simulated phishing exercises. This is done to sensitise the staff to phishing attacks, thereby reducing the risk that they and consequently the organisation, fall victim to scams, cybercrimes and malicious cyber activities.

With the current provision, however, the conduct of such exercises could be considered an offence. Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 14D to introduce a defence for the transmission of false messages for legitimate purposes related to public order, public safety or national security; or the prevention, investigation or prosecution of offences. This would give organisations assurance that they would not be committing an offence if they transmit false messages for legitimate purposes, such as simulated phishing exercises.

Sir, I will now speak about the amendments to enhance the operational efficacy of the Home Team Departments.

The first group of the amendments will clarify powers of apprehension, under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA). Let me begin by reiterating the Government's commitment to mental health.

Mental health and well-being is a key priority in our national agenda and the Government is fully committed to doing more to improve mental health and well-being. During the Motion on Advancing Mental Health in February this year, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong highlighted several key moves the Government will be making, including increasing the number of public sector psychiatrists and psychologists, introducing mental health services to all polyclinics and more general practitioner (GP) clinics, and training frontline personnel and volunteers to help people struggling with mental health.

The importance of treating people with mental health conditions with respect and empathy is also not lost on our ground officers, many of whom would be familiar with their own friends or family, who may likewise struggle with mental health. This has always been the case since the existing provisions in the MHCTA were enacted in 2008, we have also seen largely effective outcomes when Police interventions were requested.

To be clear, the current amendments do not directly relate to how such cases are treated in our medical system nor does it relate to the wider community acceptance for people with mental health conditions. The amendments we are dealing with today relate strictly to how Police can be most helpful when they are called to assist in cases when a person may harm themselves or others around them; and Police have reason to believe that the better cause of action is apprehension rather than arrest.

Let me unpack for Members how the situation typically unfolds.

The Police are often called to respond to incidents involving persons who may pose a danger to themselves or to others. This may include cases of criminal intimidation where threats of harm are made or cases of violent behaviour in a public place. The duty of the police officers is to prevent the danger from materialising. Where criminal offences are made out, Police may make an arrest.

However, where such danger is reasonably suspected to be attributable to a mental disorder and it might be more appropriate to bring such persons to a medical practitioner than to a police lock-up, the Police can apprehend them under section 7 of MHCTA. This is already provided for by law since 2008. After apprehension, as opposed to arrest, the Police will bring the person to a medical practitioner and not to a lock-up.

To be clear, powers of apprehension under section 7 cannot be applied just because a person is suffering from mental health conditions, if the person does not pose a danger to themselves or others. The person must pose a danger to themselves or others. Therefore, it is completely mistaken to think of the existing section 7 as a measure to address mental health conditions when, in fact, it deals simply with situations of danger.

In other words, the Police do not get involved in cases of persons with mental health conditions unless they pose a danger to themselves or someone else. The Police will not do so and, in fact, cannot do so even with the amendments to the MHCTA. Such persons will be treated and managed directly by medical practitioners.

However, such persons may pose a danger to themselves, for example, threatening to commit suicide; or to others, for example, conducting themselves in a manner which may hurt their family or members of the public nearby. In these circumstances, the public would expect and indeed want the Police to intervene, before anyone gets hurt.

In a real case, a 73-year-old man was found to be in possession of an ice pick and knife at a Police station. When asked why he had those items, he said foreign law enforcement agencies were disturbing his sleep and he would use the ice pick and knife in a bid to tell them to leave him alone. Police apprehended him under the MHCTA and brought him to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for medical treatment.

However, in a recent judgment, the High Court made a determination that for apprehensions under the MHCTA, the danger presented had to be imminent and it had to be in a matter of hours rather than days. Because of the High Court's determination, for cases where the time frame of the danger presented is unspecified or is not imminent, the Police do not have the option of apprehending the person and bringing him for medical treatment.

Police officers confronted with these situations are left with two options, either not take any action and risk people getting hurt or even killed or make an arrest under criminal laws and put the person through the criminal process. The first option is not responsible – the public expects Police to keep Singaporeans safe. The second option is not ideal – criminal arrest is not what the person who may have mental health conditions needs.

Clause 13 therefore amends the MHCTA to allow the Police to apprehend the person in such situations to take them for medical treatment.

The same High Court judgment determined that apprehensions are distinct from arrests under the Criminal Procedure Code. This means that Police officers do not have certain powers associated with arrest, which are essential when making apprehensions. In particular, the High Court determined that the Police do not have powers of search and seizure to ensure that the person is not hiding dangerous weapons or items.

This presents a problem. Police would be expected to hand over the person to the staff of the medical facility only after ensuring that he is not in possession of weapons. Clause 14 therefore amends the Police Force Act to make clear that relevant powers, such as those of search and seizure, are available to the Police when making apprehensions, whether under the MHCTA or any other Acts. This does not mean that the person will be needlessly roughed up. On the contrary, having assessed that the person may be suffering from mental health conditions, Police offices are minded to carry out search and seizure with due care and respect.

Sir, I want to reassure Members that the Government is mindful of the social stigma and challenges that persons with mental health conditions face. Section 7 of the MHCTA is not meant to place additional burdens on such persons or their families. Instead, our goals are to prevent danger from materialising and enable persons with mental health issues to access medical care in a timely manner.

I will now move on to the next group of amendments. Members know that the demands on the Home Team are growing, including the Police. Some have spoken about this at the recent Committee of Supply debate and I thank them for their support and appreciation of the hard work Home Team officers do for the safety and security of Singaporeans.

The following amendment relates to Police's obligations when non-arrestable offences are reported.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Code to enable the Police to not take further action for non-arrestable offences in two circumstances – one, if the case is not of a serious nature, or two, if there are insufficient grounds for proceeding with the matter.

Similar provisions are already present for arrestable offences. For example, where Police receive a report of a traffic accident with no injuries, they are empowered to not take further action, even though arrestable offences, such as dangerous or careless driving may be disclosed. However, the same exceptions are currently not available for non-arrestable offences.

Today, when a non-arrestable offence is reported, the Police must either investigate the case, refer the informant to a magistrate, or refer the case to a mediator of a Community Mediation Centre. This legal obligation applies even if the Police have reason to believe that the case is not of a serious nature, or there are insufficient grounds for proceeding with the matter. This obligation results in poor use of public resources.

This amendment therefore seeks to align the Police's obligations whether for offences that are arrestable or non-arrestable. This will provide Police more operational flexibility to decide whether a Police report is deserving of action.

Another group of amendments enhances the Home Team's operations and reduces operational risks.

Clause 5 and clauses 7 to 12 allow officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) to grant bail or personal bond for arrested persons. Today, these persons have to be brought to a Police officer to be released on bail or personal bond.

The amendments improve efficiency, as these arrested persons would no longer need to be brought to a Police lock-up or to a Police officer for granting of bail or personal bond.

The proposed amendments also allow persons arrested under the National Registration Act and the Passports Act to be detained in immigration depots, such as ICA Building, Tuas Checkpoint and Woodlands Checkpoint, instead of bringing them to Police stations. This reduces operational risks in the transport of these arrested persons.

I will now speak on the third and last set of amendments, which seeks to enhance and safeguard YRSG's operations.

Clause 15 of the Bill includes two amendments to the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises Act, or the SCORE Act for short. The first amendment is to provide YRSG with greater flexibility on staff administration and disciplinary matters. Currently, YRSG's internal disciplinary framework is stipulated in subsidiary legislation. This means YRSG needs to enact changes in the subsidiary legislation in order to change its internal disciplinary framework. This is unnecessary and inconsistent with the practices of most Statutory Boards.

The Bill amends the SCORE Act to remove the need for subsidiary legislation to be made regarding administrative staff matters. Consequently, the two existing pieces of subsidiary legislation on staff disciplinary matters will be revoked.

The second amendment is to safeguard Yellow Ribbon symbols and representations. They include YRSG's corporate logo and symbols of initiatives related to YRSG's mission, such as the Yellow Ribbon Project and Yellow Ribbon Fund logos. These logos are registered trademarks belonging to YRSG. They are used in YRSG's campaigns and programmes to galvanise society to support the reintegration of ex-offenders.

However, there have been instances where these symbols were misused for ill intent. For example, we had received feedback from members of the public that they were approached at hawker centres by individuals selling merchandise, or individuals going door-to-door asking for donations and were shown documents with the Yellow Ribbon logo. In these instances, the symbols were used for the individual's own benefit, under the guise of supporting ex-offenders.

To safeguard the symbols and ensure that they are not misused, the Bill amends the SCORE Act, to give YRSG the exclusive right to the use of YRSG's symbols and symbols of initiatives related to YRSG's mission. Those who misuse these symbols will be liable for prosecution and could face a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. In the case of a continuing offence, the offender could be further fined up to $250 for every day or part of a day during which the offence continues after conviction. This is consistent with existing provisions governing the use of the symbols of other Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Statutory Boards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will strengthen our anti-scam efforts. The new SIM card offences will help disrupt the operations of criminal syndicates.

The Bill will also allow us to better protect the public, as well as enable our Home Team officers to carry out their duties more effectively and efficiently. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, this Bill is aimed at bolstering law enforcement efforts in Singapore. It addresses two critical areas: combating scams and enhancing Home Team operations. I will speak on them in turn.

First, on combating scams. Scams have surged globally with technological advancements and Singapore is no exception. From 2022 to 2023, there was a 46.8% increase in scam cases. Victims lost more than S$600 million. This is despite having measures, such as SMS Sender ID Registry and blocking overseas scam calls, amongst other measures.

The Bill targets three key groups involved in facilitating scams: those irresponsibly registering local SIM cards or Group A; those possessing or supplying SIM cards or Group B; and retailers facilitating fraudulent SIM card registration or Group C.

For Group A, can the Ministry clarify why 10 SIM cards is used as a threshold? For Group C, authorisation is an essential condition. How can the Ministry simplify and standardise the authorisation processes for companies to implement this effectively?

The proposed penalties for offenders include fines of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment, with harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Because the potential losses caused to victims are high, we should consider minimum fines and jail terms for individual offenders and fines tied to a percentage of annual revenue for retailers.

Effective strategies are crucial to detect and prosecute such sales of SIM cards. Many of them operate on platforms like Telegram or Carousell. How would the Ministry work with the platform owners to stem out such activities?

Next, on the enhancements to support our Home Team operations. The proposed amendments empower law enforcement agencies, particularly the Police Force, in handling mental health-related incidents. It seeks to set clear thresholds for apprehension, ensuring effectiveness and clarity.

Mental health experts, rightfully, are concerned that the changes could lead to wrongful apprehensions and deepen stigma of mental health patients. Currently, Police can only apprehend mentally disordered individuals if they pose "imminent" danger.

The proposed amendments would allow apprehension based on a "reasonable belief" of potential harm. What are the measures put in place to minimise hasty assessment by untrained officers that increase the chances wrongful apprehension? In addition, can the Ministry also clarify what are the scenarios constituting what is "reasonably" in determining when a Police officer may make such arrest or apprehension. I propose that the Ministry also partner the mental health community to train and prepare our officers for this new change in the law.

At the same time, we must appreciate the difficulties in making the right operational decisions. It is not uncommon for Police officers to encounter situations on the ground where the threat of violence can escalate very quickly. There are many variables that can cause such escalation. Such situations can happen during patrols. They can also happen when Police officers are called down to a scene. There can be very little time from the escalation to harm actually being caused.

Our officers must be trusted and empowered to protect not only the subject but also innocent bystanders. They must also have the weight of the law behind them to discharge their duties and not have to second-guess themselves. In fact, second-guessing in such situations can be highly dangerous. In the years that I served in the Singapore Police Force, I have witnessed a few of such situations that warrant decisive actions. Our officers' deep training allows them to execute their roles decisively even while they put themselves harm's way. These very actions make the difference between minimising harm and allowing a situation to go very wrong. Thus, we must provide our officers with every available tool to protect life and property.

Thus, I support the enhancements in the Bill. At the same time, I note that it is crucial to ensure sensitive and safe apprehension procedures that are updated regularly. Partnership with the mental healthcare sector to develop standardised procedures and providing additional training and resources for law enforcement officers is essential.

Lastly, regarding apprehension in attempted suicide cases, individuals are obligated to aid Police officers. Can the Ministry clarify that refusal to aid the officer, while regrettable is not an offence?

In conclusion, I support the Bill as a crucial step in fortifying Singapore's security and resilience. The amendments targeting scams offer promising solutions which can reduce the number of scam-related incidents. Additionally, sensitive treatment and effective handling of mentally disordered individuals by law enforcement agencies with clear parameters informed and supported by the mental health community will be paramount. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Speaker, I will focus my speech today on concerns that I have on Part 3 of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, which deal with the apprehension of persons.

Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 7 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act 2008, or MHCTA, by reducing the threshold requirement for a police or special police officer to exercise the power to apprehend a person. This amendment supersedes the interpretation of danger by the General Division of the High Court in Mah Kiat Seng vs Attorney-General and Others. In that case, the Court held at paragraph 48 that the use of the word "danger" implied a degree of imminence, that is, that without the Police officer's intervention, such behaviour is likely to occur within a short time, which the Judge stated that he would consider to be a matter of hours rather than days. In addition, the Court clarified that there must be a reasonably imminent risk of physical harm to the person apprehended or others.

The new amendment proposed in this Bill supersedes the High Court's interpretation by empowering Police and special police officers to apprehend a person, P, if they believe that P may endanger peace or any other person's life or personal safety. It would also introduce a new sub-clause (2), subsection (aa), which provides that it is sufficient that the danger to life or personal safety is only reasonably likely to occur and need not be imminent and actual harm is not required.

While I appreciate that the Minister for Home Affairs had previously stated in this House that law should not inadvertently result in defensive policing, I believe that it is important to make it clear that the amendments reducing the threshold to apprehend a person is subject to safeguards and for the public to know and understand what those safeguards are.

As our law currently stands, the Police's general power of arrest is subject to various safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code. The distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences make clear the situations where a police officer may arrest someone without a warrant. For example, while the police may arrest without a warrant someone on suspicion that they have caused or may voluntarily cause grievous hurt to another person, the police cannot arrest without a warrant in a situation where the offence is that of voluntarily causing hurt.

With the proposed amendments, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of my understanding that these changes are in response to the High Court's ruling in Mah. Additionally and specifically, can the Minister detail what specific challenges our law enforcement officers have had while carrying out their policing duties with suspects who are persons suffering from mental health crises or illnesses that warrant these amendments?

I have concerns that the threshold being lowered has to be very carefully weighed up against the expressed aims of Singaporean society to do more to properly support and address mental health challenges facing some of our fellow Singaporeans, especially when law enforcement officers do not necessarily have the training and resources to fully understand the challenging and complex issues surrounding mental health conditions.

I have five main points and clarifications about the new threshold.

First, I have a concern that the lowering of the threshold from the Court's clarification of a reasonably imminent risk being lowered to a reasonable likelihood that danger to life or personal safety may occur under the MHCTA would lead to different standards applying to those who may be living with mental health conditions or illness. In fact, according to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), such a distinction is discriminatory.

In September 2015, in Guidelines on the Right to Liberty and Security of Persons with Disabilities issued by the CRPD Committee, legislations like the MHCTA, which allow the detention of persons on the ground of their actual or perceived impairment on the basis that they are deemed dangerous to themselves or to others, are discriminatory in nature and amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Can the Minister clarify if the Government has considered its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the Government ratified in 2013, in tabling this amendment? If so, how do the proposed amendments square with our CRPD commitments?

In October 2022, the CRPD Committee issued its concluding observations for its first periodic review of Singapore's record on disability rights. At paragraph 30A of the concluding observations in respect of Article 14 of the CRPD on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to Liberty, the CRPD Committee urged Singapore to repeal all legislative provisions allowing for the involuntary deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with psychosocial disabilities on the grounds of their impairment or their perceived dangerousness to themselves or others.

As noted above, this refers specifically to the MHCTA.

I note that the Minister for Health had stated in a response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in 2021 that the MHCTA is already in compliance with the requirements of Article 14 of the CRPD. Can the Government confirm if this position on the MHCTA remains the same, notwithstanding the CRPD Committee's recommendation for this House to reform this law? If not, will the Government consider the necessary steps to be taken to ensure that the MHCTA complies with our obligations under the CRPD?

Second, the High Court Judge in Mah also noted that he considered that a time frame for imminence under the new old threshold would be a matter of hours rather than days. With the introduction of the new threshold of reasonable risk to safety, can the Minister confirm if there would be any time frames that are applied to the assessment of whether to detain? If so, what are they?

Third, paragraph 23 of MHA's press release on this Bill gives an example of a situation where police records show that the person making the threat has a history of mental disorder. Would the Minister be able to confirm that all persons suspected to be suffering from mental crises and falling under this new threshold would be subject to a background check for a history of mental disorder? However, it is unclear to me also what the records refer to and what kind of history would be applicable here. If there is no history, does this mean that no intervention is possible?

Fourth, given the concerns above, what safeguards, guidelines or training and support would police officers be given in applying the new threshold to situations on the ground, especially after they have made a decision to detain the suspect? After all, we are drawing a delicate balance between public safety on the one hand and the proper treatment and approach to those living with mental illness and conditions.

In an article published in JOM last week, Chan Lee Shan, drawing on her own experiences of being arrested while suffering from her first and only episode of psychosis, raised concerns about a person living with mental illness and crises ending up being traumatised by the experience, particularly if they are then treated no differently from a conventional arrest and held in police cells while checks are being made and next steps are being decided as to what would be the most appropriate step for treatment, release or otherwise.

Finally, on the new thresholds, what options are available to those who believe that they were erroneously detained, subject to what they believe to be excessive force or trauma? These are not theoretical concerns, as after all, the Mah case was one where the officer was found to have made certain statements which were later withdrawn after being contradicted by body-worn camera footage and the judge also expressed concerns about the discrepancies between the medical report produced by the examining doctor and the evidence later submitted.

The safeguards and guidelines I asked about are thus extremely important if an occasion arises where the conduct of the arrest or apprehension and subsequent procedures are problematic.

Taking a step back to look at a bigger picture and in light of the Second Minister's acknowledgement of Deputy Prime Minister's declaration to this House that mental health is a key national priority, in February 2024 and the large number of Members who spoke to express their concern and even alarm over the situation facing us, I am worried about the amendments to the MHTCTA unnecessarily perpetuating stigma against persons living with mental health conditions.

This entrenchment of discrimination against those living with mental health conditions was also a concern that was highlighted in an op-ed published in The Straits Times last week. The authors pointed out quite rightly that this is a major concern and identified the balance between three main prongs. First, upholding public safety; second, respect for the dignity of the person in crisis; and third, the proportionate use of force. For sure, this is a tricky balance to get right and I hope that my concerns raised above can help us better appreciate the various segments contained of each of these prongs when discussing whether these amendments help or hinder our stated aims to reduce and ultimately eliminate stigma for those living with mental illness or mental health conditions.

A related point then is also whether the police are best placed to respond to persons experiencing mental health crises. In recent years, many countries have taken steps to implement alternative strategies to provide support and de-escalate the situation. For example, in 2017, Sweden introduced a psychiatric emergency response team which would send an ambulance comprising two mental health nurses and one paramedic to attend to persons experiencing a mental health crisis. Another approach is the United Kingdom (UK) Street triage model, a partnership scheme between the police and approved mental health professionals to provide advice and support for people experiencing mental health crises.

We have taken encouraging steps in this direction here in Singapore. In March 2021, IMH partnered SPF to pilot the Crisis Response Team, a mental health crisis response team in Singapore dedicated to providing timely care and support to persons with suicidal tendencies in the community.

A 2023 journal article published in European Psychiatry found that CRT intervention could mitigate suicide risk and pressure on the mental health system, that is, reduce unnecessary emergency room visits and hospital admissions, create greater mental health awareness and facilitate individuals' connection to mental health care services, that is, in hospitals or the community.

Given the positive impact of the CRT, has the Government considered expanding the programme to respond not only to cases involving the risk of suicide but also persons experiencing mental health crises more generally? Such a move can also help reduce the strain on our police.

In response to a PQ in March 2022, the Minister for Home Affairs had stated that the Police and other investigative agencies' primary task is to deter crime, investigate and deal with crime, and they are not deeply trained in mental health issues. We have to balance our current police and public safety approach to persons experiencing mental health crises and discuss how we may adopt a more person-centric approach that focuses on providing care and support in these situations.

I thus conclude my speech with two suggestions. First, I hope that more work will be done across the Government to educate and help more citizens better understand the complex issues that lie behind the occasional intersection between public law enforcement and those experiencing mental health crises.

For this, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) launched the Beyond the Label Collective in 2022. At the launch of the Collective, former President Halimah Yaacob noted in her speech that we should not erroneously associate criminality or violence with mental health conditions, as this is rarely the case. We therefore need more public education campaigns to help Singaporeans better appreciate the difficulties involved in achieving the tricky balance between public safety and the needs and dignity of those living with mental health conditions, which may end up being infringed when they are unable to get appropriate support and treatment that is needed to get them and their loved ones when they may be experiencing a mental health crisis.

Second, interested members of the public can be trained as community first responders to support persons experiencing mental health crises. Currently, the Community Life-Saving Programme, offered jointly by the People's Association and MHA, offers the standard First Aid plus AED Awareness Course, SFAA and the CPR AED certification. This can be expanded to include the Singapore Emergency Responder Academy's First Aid and Mental Health Training Programme. Volunteers with the People's Association Community Emergency Response Team should also attend such training so that they are able to respond to persons experiencing mental health crises. With their knowledge, these trained volunteers can also serve as ambassadors to educate their communities and persons living with mental health conditions.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will focus on two topics: first, on local SIM card misuse; and second, on the enhancement of police officers' powers in apprehending people who show signs of a mental disorder and pose a safety risk to themselves or others.

First, local SIM card misuse has seen an exponential surge in recent years. The statistics are alarming. The number of local mobile lines implicated in scams and other cybercrimes has quadrupled in just two years. This worrying trend is reflected in the financial losses as well, with victims losing nearly triple the amount in 2023 – a staggering $384 million compared to $137 million in 2021.

The nature of these scams has also evolved, making them more insidious. In the past, a simple rule of thumb of ignoring unexpected calls with foreign numbers sufficed as a cautionary measure. However, criminals have now shifted tactics, exploiting local phone numbers to lure unsuspecting victims. This shift preys on the inherent trust we place on local calls, especially for our vulnerable elderly population. Our seniors are more likely to answer local calls, creating a prime opportunity for scammers to exploit their trust. The consequences can be devastating when victims fall prey to such deception.

While I commend the Government's initiative to tighten regulations and combat this issue, I believe that there are several key clarifications that need to be addressed.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must acknowledge the vulnerability of certain individuals. These very people can become unwitting accomplices, having their SIM cards misused either by mistake or through exploitation. They are, in essence, both victims and potential targets. I am glad that those who have legitimate reasons or were genuinely tricked into giving up their particulars would not be held liable. Nevertheless, I also understand that this could complicate enforcement and proving intent is always difficult. Hence, we must try to tackle the problem at its roots.

How will this Bill target family members, relatives, caregivers and persons who exploit their close contact with vulnerable elderly, in misusing their identity to register SIM cards? Are there plans to educate and warn the elderly against the misuse of their identity in SIM card registration? Likewise, how does this Bill address situations where multiple SIM cards have been misused by family members, but the elderly person feigns or alleges ignorance? Will there be penalties for the elderly and subsequently, the main perpetrator?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should create a system that empowers retailers to whistle blow conveniently and anonymously. The role of retailers in combating this issue cannot be overstated. Retailers are on the front lines. Empowering them to act as a safeguard is critical. But expecting them to reject every suspected case of bulk SIM card purchases for malicious purposes may not be practical. Customer service personnel may face pressure from their superiors or irate customers if a purchase is mistakenly flagged.

Therefore, exploring alternative avenues for retailers to report suspicious activities is essential. The Government should develop an avenue that allows for convenient and anonymous whistle blowing. This would alleviate the burden of direct confrontation for customer service personnel and will encourage more proactive reporting.

Furthermore, exploring incentives for such reporting is worth considering. Recognising retailers who actively participate in combating SIM card misuse could be highly effective. For example, a public recognition program that designates them as "Trusted SIM Retailers" would not only incentivise vigilance, but also boost their reputation among customers seeking secure and responsible service providers. It may also deter possible perpetrators from approaching such retailers. This approach fosters collaboration and promotes ethical practices within the retail sector.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will move on to address the amendments relating to the apprehension of mentally disordered persons. In particular, the lowering of the threshold before a mentally disordered individual may be apprehended to one of reasonable suspicion, when an act of possible harm is reasonably likely to occur and not only when it is imminent and mental disorder is suspected.

I support the move to empower Police officers to apprehend the said individuals. The harm they may cause to themselves or others around them is irreparable. An obvious example is if they end up successfully committing suicide or homicide. The move is a pre-emptive approach that protects both the person, as well as those around them.

At the outset, we must always remember that mental illness is not a crime. Mental illness expressed as anti-social behaviour in and of itself may not be life-threatening. Even among the mentally ill, there is a wide spectrum of behaviours. It is thus imperative that our Police officers must be better equipped to identify potential signs of mental illness, both in the individuals with a history and those without, always with the view of harm reduction and not the stigmatisation of the mentally ill.

I am concerned that if our Police officers lack the expertise to do so, they may not be able to use the powers effectively or responsibly. The recent case of Mah Kiat Seng vs Attorney-General and Others has raised some concerns. In this case, Mr Mah claimed he was wrongly arrested and imprisoned based on false information provided by a Police officer. How can the Government prevent similar situations from happening again?

With great power comes great responsibility. The good standing of our men in blue relies on them being able to exercise their powers in a manner that balances the need for decisive action in high-stress operational situations, with a keen sense of human dignity and skillful instinct honed through experience and training. This is all the more delicate when Police deal with the mentally ill who have already been triggered by stressful situations and this becomes further exacerbated by Police intervention.

While the law empowers Police to apprehend individuals believed to be a danger to themselves or others due to mental health concerns, it is critical to have safeguards against misuse. The Court acknowledged the importance of Police discretion in such situations, but also highlighted the need for responsible action. This case raises the question: what safeguards are in place to prevent Police officers from overstepping their authority, as seen in the Mah Kiat Seng case?

Public trust in our institutions hinges on the belief that we act in the best interests of all Singaporeans. This extends to our Police force, who require proper training and clear guidelines to uphold their duty effectively. Unclear procedures create apprehension for both the public and Police officers, potentially hindering enforcement and fostering disputes. The proposed law empowers Police to apprehend individuals under specific circumstances. To ensure transparency and to minimise apprehension, the Ministry should clarify these thresholds.

Additionally, clear guidelines are critical to prevent potential power abuses and ensure effective collaboration with mental health professionals. While traditional training methods have value, equipping Police with real-world case studies, hands-on experience and access to mental health experts is vital. Training should emphasise de-escalation tactics and provide a framework for officers to escalate complex situations to appropriate personnel for further evaluation.

Moving on, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we delve into other aspects of the Bill, it is critical to acknowledge the limitations of some of the new regulations while exploring further solutions. While section 39H of the Bill allows for extraterritorial effect, the question of enforcement remains. How will this provision be effectively implemented? How will we establish collaborative efforts with other foreign jurisdictions to apprehend perpetrators operating outside our borders?

Additionally, part 2 clause 6 empowers the Police to decide against pursuing non-arrestable offenses. The criteria outlined – cases deemed "not of a serious nature" or with "insufficient grounds" – warrant further clarification. For instance, how will this impact issues like neighbourly disputes or noise complaints? Will isolated incidents of nuisance be entirely dismissed, leaving residents with no avenue for recourse? A clear framework for addressing such situations is necessary.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a positive step towards combating the rise of SIM card misuse and enhancing public safety. However, to maximise its effectiveness, I urge the House to consider the following: first, protect vulnerable populations. We must establish clear guidelines to address the misuse of seniors' identities for SIM card registration. Educational initiatives can empower them to identify and prevent such exploitation.

Second, empower retailers. A system for anonymous whistleblowing by retailers, coupled with an incentive program like "Trusted SIM Retailer" designation, can significantly improve vigilance and reporting.

Next, regarding the amendments to Police powers, while empowering officers to apprehend individuals with mental health issues is critical, ensuring fair implementation is paramount. To this end, transparency and clear guidelines are essential to prevent misuse of power and public fear. We also need to equip Police officers with comprehensive training, with real-world scenarios, giving them access to mental health professionals, and providing a framework to escalate complex cases.

By prioritising these recommendations, we can strengthen the Bill and ensure it safeguards both our citizens and their security. Let us work together to send a clear message: zero tolerance for SIM card misuse and having trust in the enforcement of Police powers. With the proposed amendments, we can create a more secure Singapore for all. I support the Bill.

Dr Syed Harun.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My contribution to this debate relates specifically to part 3 of the Bill, the Amendments Relating To Apprehension under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act and the Police Force Act. I wish to declare that I am a psychiatrist in private practice and am the Honorary Secretary of the Singapore Psychiatric Association. I am also a visiting consultant psychiatrist at a restructured hospital.

I wish to also add that I have dealt with many a psychiatric emergency in my line of work. I have myself been conflicted and made the harrowing call to law enforcement over grave concerns that an acquaintance was at risk of potential suicide.

Firstly, let me qualify categorically that by an overwhelming proportion and majority, most individuals labouring under mental illness would not fulfil the threshold set out within this proposed Bill for apprehension by Police. The large majority of those with mental illness struggle silently, may appear normal to most and are able to navigate life's challenges with some treatment and support from family and loved ones.

The individuals for whom this Bill could apply represent but a slither of individuals who are afflicted with mental illness or mental health concerns. When placed under much duress, entrenched and severe mental illness can impair one's mind, to the extent that he or she may consider life not worth living anymore and contemplate suicide. Often, at this juncture, all hope appears lost, reasonableness is absent and negative thoughts have festered well beyond fleeting moments of self-doubt in themselves and their lives.

If we are lucky, such individuals – with encouragement from family and loved ones – would agree to present themselves to a psychiatrist much earlier for treatment. However, there are times where family members, who themselves could also be at a loss, reach out for external help from community organisations or call upon law enforcement, especially when they are deeply concerned for the safety of the individual.

I can say with some confidence that our Police officers are confronted with this on a daily basis. Almost a daily occurrence, at the IMH Emergency Room, ever so often there would be some Police presence bringing a distressed person to be assessed by a designated medical practitioner, on account of section 7 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act, or MHCTA.

When someone is on the brink of suicide and immense despair, they would have lost all hope, are taxed with a sense of worthlessness and with no longing to continue living. Police officers and their Home Team colleagues remain their last hope for rescue, and such officers often put themselves at risk to honour their duty to protect fellow Singaporeans.

For context, often these apprehensions take place in unfamiliar surroundings and home environments, in the presence of sharp objects like blades and knives, with open ungrilled windows or even at corridors of significant height. The tension in the air would be palpable, sometimes with raised voices of frustration and emotions running high.

Time is of the essence and where reasonable grounds are sufficiently present to suggest a potential threat to self and others, my view is that apprehension may be necessary to save a life under such circumstances.

This Bill, Mr Speaker, gives some latitude for Police officers to act with some urgency and not reactively, before a suicide attempt becomes imminent and before rescue could be more risky, both for the person who is under duress and for those who are trying to make a genuine attempt at rescue.

Where suicide risk assessment, even for psychiatrists, is not a perfect science, my view is that it is fair and appropriate for Police officers to exercise reasonable judgement without waiting for a suicide to be imminently clear or after such attempt at lethal harm has been actualised.

Mr Speaker, there are ground concerns that stigma could be further perpetuated as a direct result of the proposed changes in the Bill, but I beg to differ, in that this Bill is scoped within a very specific circumstance of a psychiatric emergency and only where there is a patent risk of suicide.

Even as I advocate for this Bill today, there are three things I hope the Ministry can look into moving forward, if not already done today, to really reassure concerns on the ground and hon Members of the House today.

First, it is to ensure structured training. Structured training for Police officers in the apprehension of attempted suicide cases would be important to guide Police officers fronting such work, and this could be coupled with considered inputs from care professionals and specialists in the field. Such structured training would also be important to ensure that while there is some latitude and range for judgement by Police officers on the ground, the exercise of such powers of apprehension continues to be done with propriety, with confidence and with safety in mind.

Second, to ensure access to psychiatric evaluation and assessment without delay after apprehension. Where the apprehension is done under subsections 26A to 26F of the Police Force Act, the Ministry must then ensure that the individuals are sent for a formal assessment by a medical practitioner or a designated medical practitioner at a psychiatric institution under the sections 9 and 10 of the MHTCA with expedience and without delay. If the premise of the apprehension was due to concerns over a potential suicide attempt and a mental disorder, then it follows that it is treatment that the individual needs and care and assessment must be forthcoming as soon as safety is established.

Third, to work more closely with mental health professionals in such crisis work. I think there is scope for the Ministry to study the prospect of closer collaboration between mental health professionals and law enforcement especially when dealing with crisis calls relating to mentally disordered individuals. There could be value in having combined teams of law enforcement and mental health practitioners as collaborative first responders to ensure that, on one hand, there is Police resource for swift apprehension to safety of such individuals where required and if the threshold is not met and care can be safely given, mental health professionals, in turn, could be the ones offering supportive care thereafter.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank our Police officers on the ground for the work that they do in relation to such apprehensions, where there needs to be a delicate balance in their approach of care for the person in distress, alongside a swift desire to bring the person to safety.

As a clinician and psychiatrist, my role in addressing psychiatric emergencies is moot without first ensuring that any patient of mine is safe, first and foremost. No meaningful medical treatment is possible without first ensuring safety of the patient and rescuer.

This parallels our approach to dealing with medical emergencies too, as is the protocol for Basic Cardiac Life Support which I am sure many Members of the House are trained and are familiar with. The acronym is DRSABCD – Assess for Danger, Assess for Responsiveness, Send for Help, Airway, Breathing, CPR and Defibrillation, where in the first instance, danger must be ameliorated as a first and utmost priority and remains several steps ahead before CPR treatment can take place.

Similarly, in the face of a psychiatric emergency, where there is an active threat or concern over suicide, a danger to life either imminent or reasonably anticipated, the work of our Police officers and their Civil Defence counterpart remain important. Within reasonable grounds, my view is that they should be empowered to exercise appropriate means to perform such a lifesaving role, before any ensuing treatment can be administered accordingly. Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, my speech today will touch on the proposed amendments to deter the misuse of local SIM cards.

By now, we are all well aware of how the proliferation of scams and cybercrimes and hence, the overall crime rate in Singapore is on a sharp rise in recent years. While physical crime cases have declined over the past five years, from 23,980 cases in 2019 to 19,966 cases in 2023, the reverse has happened for scam and cybercrime cases, rising almost five times from 11,135 cases in 2019 to 50,376 cases in 2023, with the increase seen last year the largest annual increase yet, at 16,707 cases or an almost 50% jump compared to the year before.

While we may not be living in the metaverse per se as yet, our digital lives and online footprint are increasingly inescapable aspects of our everyday lives – from the way we communicate and socialise via online messaging apps and social media, the way we go about our daily jobs in front of our laptops and even the way we transact in the offline world buying lunch or groceries, with Singapore moving closer towards a cashless society.

The Gallup's Law and Order Index uses four questions to gauge people's sense of personal security and their own experiences with crime and law enforcement. While much of these relate to one's sense of physical safety and security, in this day and age, it is worth looking at these questions from the digital sphere as well.

For example, one of the questions relate to, "within the last 12 months, have you had money or property stolen from you or another household member?" These days, the losses from scams are likely to be way more significant, sometimes involving our life savings, than losing one's wallet from snatch theft or robbery. And while we may "feel safe walking alone at night", it is noteworthy that 96% of the population, aged 15 and above, are at least somewhat concerned about becoming a victim of scams; with 99% of seniors, aged 60 and above, sharing the same concern.

As scammers and criminal networks continue to evolve their approach in committing scams and cybercrimes against Singaporeans, we need to step up our game to reverse the worrying trend in scam cases and I believe the new measures would be a welcome addition into our arsenal in the war against scammers and cybercriminals. Nonetheless, I have a few areas of concern which I hope the Minister will be able to address.

The Bill introduces offences targeting three groups of offenders – irresponsible registrants; those receiving, supplying or possessing local SIM cards; and retailers facilitating fraudulent registration of local SIM cards.

Given our earlier efforts to tighten SIM card registration requirements and the implementation of the +65 prefix to identify foreign scam syndicates spoofing local numbers, these scammers have turned to using local SIM cards instead.

As set out in the MHA's press release, the rampant misuse of local SIM cards to perpetuate scams has been driven by people who give away their SIM cards or provide their particulars to others to be used to sign up for SIM cards, typically for money, also known as "irresponsible registrants".

While it certainly is irresponsible of such people when viewed from a rational third-party perspective, it may be the case of ignorance from the perspective of certain persons, of the significant harms such a seemingly innocent move can cause. To me, it is much less defensible to feign ignorance when it comes to cases involving lending one's identity to be a phantom employee, even earning extra Central Provident Fund (CPF) along the way, while enabling dishonest companies to sidestep foreign worker quotas, or to wilfully lend one's bank accounts in return for a fee to facilitate money laundering.

Under section 39B, it would be presumed that a person has reasonable grounds to believe, that the local SIM card would be used to commit or facilitate a crime and until the contrary is proved, could be found guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. To what extent do we wish to pursue or even imprison an elderly person, or someone who may not be literate or sophisticated enough to see the criminal element of this act, even as someone gave him a "token sum" to thank him for his time and efforts and would have "ticked the box" on receiving "any gain"? What kind of educational or information campaigns will be conducted to protect those who may not have wilfully committed an offence for a quick buck and could now face imprisonment?

I welcome section 39G, which makes it an offence for a retailer or telecommunication licensee to register a local SIM card using any person's particulars without that person's authorisation or knowing the particulars were false or misleading under certain conditions.

We have certainly seen cases in the past, where errant retailers were taken to task; such as earlier this year, where an authorised dealer was fined $48,000 for exploiting customers' personal data to register SIM cards without their knowledge or consent, making an estimated profit of $35,000 along the way.

However, just as we censure financial institutions for not putting in place adequate Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing measures, to what extent does the buck stop at the retailers and authorised dealers themselves; and when would the telecommunication licensee itself be liable for failing to prevent, detect and address such abuses of their SIM cards and telecommunications networks to facilitate crime? Beyond employees of retailers or the mobile service providers, who may have been directly involved in facilitating the SIM card registrations, to what extent would the management team and the board of these companies be liable themselves under the new section 39G, especially since the employees of these mobile service providers are specifically identified as such? Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As we all know, while physical crimes have decreased over the past five years, scams and cybercrime cases have risen sharply, leading to increase in the overall crime rate in Singapore in recent years.

Signs indicate that more scammers are using local SIM cards for scams and illegal lending, even setting up accounts such as PayNow to receive illicit funds and creating accounts on messaging apps such as WhatsApp. After the passing of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, providing personal information to strangers for the registration of local SIM cards, selling SIM cards registered under one's own or another person's name, or receiving, supplying or possessing someone else's SIM card without proper justification can constitute criminal offences.

Many of us may intuitively know that providing one’s identity to dishonest companies as a phantom employee to earn CPF funds, or handing over one’s bank accounts to strangers to help unscrupulous individuals abuse the accounts, or even facilitating money laundering activities, are all illegal. However, many people may not realise the significant harm that can result from providing one’s identity to strangers for the registration of local SIM cards.

Therefore, I urge the Government to conduct more publicity campaigns on this topic to protect our fellow citizens who may unwittingly commit an offense, such as the elderly and those with diminished mental capacity.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I met N – not his real name – a few years ago over at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). He was frequently at our MPS and we learnt of his many challenges as he grew to trust us and confide in us. N was in his 60s and I believe him to be an undiagnosed special needs adult, a high-functioning one capable of independent living, albeit an awkward one when it comes to relationships and social norms. During one of our MPS, he came distraught and shared that he was arrested by the Police recently.

He had ordered fast food delivery to be sent to his mother, who is living in an aged home. When his mother told him that she did not receive the delivery, he charged down to the local fast food restaurant, demanding to be compensated for the food his family had failed to receive. N is a tall man and when he is angry, he talks in a very loud voice and can be quite intimidating for the uninitiated. Needless to say, our local fast food counter staff was ill-equipped to deal with him and she called in the mall security and the local Police team for assistance. That day, according to N, he caused the rather elderly security guard to fall. He pushed a passerby who came in to help and he nearly fell on a policeman. He was subsequently taken in by the Police.

When N recounted the event to me, he was distraught but thankful that he did not cause more harm to the people involved. He still wanted his fast food delivered, which was why he came to see us at the MPS, but acknowledged that he would be in deeper trouble, or perhaps have even injured himself seriously, should there not be intervention by the Police. It was, after all, a whole store of people against one N. I later found out that our Police Force are indeed trained to recognise, manage and diffuse such situations and I call for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to ensure that such training be made mandatory for all enforcers, NSFs included, if it if not already done so and this should be conducted in a timely and frequent manner.

While N's situation is perhaps an extreme one, we see semblances of this in our everyday lives. For example, when someone on the public transport has a meltdown, Singaporeans do not often react kindly. More often than not, the commuters would give them a dirty look, or exchange disapproving looks with their fellow commuters, if not simply resigning to "mind their own businesses". It goes without saying, that the social rejection does not help someone who is already over-sensitised.

If our commuters could react to the meltdown with some understanding and compassion, very much like if during that period, N had been treated with some empathy and understanding, the commuter and N would have a much easier time coaching themselves to calm down. Better yet, if most of the commuters have a basic understanding on how to help someone in a meltdown situation, the Police may not even have to be involved in the first place.

This particular amendment clearly is not here to vest more power for law enforcement to make arrests. Instead, it is quite the contrary. It sets clear limits to their power so that we can make the Police Force a force for the nation, to make Singapore the safest place in the world, if I may quote the SPF's vision. More importantly, the heart of this amendment is not to correct behaviours, but to make more Singaporeans aware of people with amplified needs, so that the whole kampung can come together and make a home for us in this city.

I have full support that this conviction will continue its work beyond the matter of enforcement in time to come. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Keith Chua.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first mention my involvement in a number of mental health support service agencies, particularly as board member.

In February 2024, this Parliament overwhelmingly passed a landmark Motion on advancing mental health. This House recognised the importance of mental health as a health, social and economic issue and called for a whole-of-Singapore effort. This followed the October 2023 launch of the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy.

The October 2023 report and the February 2024 Motion collectively brought tremendous encouragement to anyone and everyone with interest and concern with mental health and wellness. Persons in recovery, caregivers, mental health professionals and service providers – all found comfort, fresh hope and renewed expectations.

When I first read this proposed Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill – specifically in the reference to mental health and also read the resulting media comment, I was alarmed and concerned. Why the need to make the change now just as we are building a national collective toward enhanced mental health support?

Plugging gaps in the law is the task of the Government. This Bill is wide-ranging and mental health is just one of many proposed amendments. I have no issue with the other amendments proposed in the Bill.

Could this amendment relating to mental health have been introduced at another time? This would enable the many follow-up aspects from the October 2023 Ministry of Health (MOH) strategy plan and the February 2024 Parliamentary Motion to settle in and gain traction.

Would we not be a better prepared community having given this bit more time? Can we still consider deferring this if we are truly trying to send a positive signal of hope for persons coping with mental health issues, especially while we are doing all we can to encourage more to come forward and seek help early and while we continue to fight the stigma associated with mental health?

This House is likely to be aware of several articles that have since been written about the Bill. Most of these articles expressed varying degrees of concerns on the proposed amendments and have been written by persons in recovery, by caregivers and by mental healthcare professionals.

Let me start with the article from Ms Chan Li Shan entitled, "I object: mental illness is not a crime". Ms Chan is a patient advocate, an author and a person with lived experience. I met Ms Chan some years back and heard her story of recovery. In Singapore, we do not have many individuals like Ms Chan Li Shan, who have documented their journeys of recovery. I have also heard mental health professionals expressing the need for more persons in recovery to write of their experiences so we can better understand this from the perspective of one receiving treatment and care, understand the challenges, appreciate their feelings and emotions and recognise that just like everyone else, persons in recovery are fellow human beings who have views, who can feel hurt and rejection and can appreciate care and affection.

Today, mental health care at the patient level has improved. Individuals, such as Ms Chan, have shared about the pain and trauma in the use of restraints in hospitals. In her article she voices the issue of real risk of trauma on individuals in recovery if the law is not applied in the way it may be intended. She concludes with these words, "Mental illness is not a crime and our laws should not be constructed to make it so. I object."

Ms Sabrina Ooi, CEO of Calm Collective Asia, also shared her experience on the trauma of getting arrested. She calls on us to find compassion to look beyond the surface and to broaden our perspective on what it means to keep our society safe from the mentally disordered.

Dr Jonathan Kuek, clinical mental health researcher, raised the concern on the thresholds for apprehension. Under the proposed new law, as long as the danger to human life or personal safety is reasonably likely to occur, police officers will be allowed to take someone into custody before any actual harm is caused. The danger need not be imminent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the hon Minister kindly clarify how the law enforcement officers will make this judgement call. Can the hon Minister give reasonable assurance to persons in recovery and their caregivers and families, that degrees of unusual or undesirable behaviour can be sufficiently calibrated before apprehension is deemed necessary?

Ms Porsche Poh, Executive Director of Silver Ribbon, wrote on ensuring that police are competent in managing mental health crises.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of those who wrote in expressing concerns about this new law agreed that we have excellent law enforcement officers. The concerns are not questioning the integrity and existing capabilities. Many give credit for the thoughtful and professional way our law enforcement officers execute their roles.

I sought the views of Mr Nicholas Lee, Executive Director of Resilience Collective, a mental health charity powered by peers for peers. Peers are persons in recovery and persons with lived experience.

Mr Lee shared this with me, "When I first heard the news of enhancing our police officers' powers when making arrests of people with mental health conditions, I immediately felt there would be a reintroduction of stigma on mental health. 'Why would normal powers not be enough? Are people with mental health conditions violent?'. These potentially new perceptions are not healthy for us as we have been slowly chipping away at this huge, seemingly insurmountable, boulder called stigma."

I have read briefly that law enforcement agencies would send officers for training. While I applaud this, I am concerned how thorough this training would be. I say this because each person is different and triggers may take very different forms. As a person being subject to such an arrest, one must always remember that emotions will be at play and whether or not I can control my emotions.

The law, I agree, is meant for good. But perhaps, what is needed is a joint effort to develop these methods so that both officers and persons with mental health conditions are protected. A group with representation from all – from the Police, psychiatrists, mental health professionals and persons with mental health conditions – so that no one is left behind or not considered.

Ms Anthea Ong, former Nominated Member of Parliament; Ms Cassandra Chia, President of the Disabled People's Association; and Dr Rayner Tan from the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health penned an article entitled, "When someone has a mental health crisis, arrest is not the answer". They too speak up for the persons facing mental health issues.

We do have specialised response teams for mental health. Should we therefore scale these up so that as far as possible this will be the first line of response to individuals in mental health crises thus enabling law enforcement officers to focus on their primary duties?

The challenge would be to differentiate the correct response when a call for help or action is received. As with the issue faced by our Accidents and Emergency (A&E) departments as a first port of call for any semblance of a health emergency, so will calls to the police be a likely default position for disruptive behaviour.

I would also like to refer the commentary written by SG Mental Health Matters. Concerns expressed here relate to the significant discretion handed to Police officers. There is also the concern about the potential resultant trauma on persons with mental health conditions.

Dr Jared Ng's commentary, "Expanded police powers don't have to mean 'three steps forward, two steps back' for mental health in Singapore", looks at the differing views and offers this proposal: "Mental health professionals and law enforcement officers have a responsibility to work together to ensure the best possible outcomes. A multi-stakeholder committee could give and gather feedback on operational processes, evaluate intervention strategies to inform policy adjustments. Only then can we ensure both public safety and the compassionate treatment of those in mental health crises. What matters now, is how stakeholders are engaged and collaborate so that Singapore does not detract from the strides made in mental healthcare."

Dr Ng was chief of emergency and crisis care at IMH and therefore a voice with experience. He speaks on the interface between the Police and mental health and cites some collaborative models from the United States, the Nordic countries and Australia.

Several years ago, I was introduced to the value of response teams which included trained peers, or persons with a lived experience, as part of the team. A person with a lived experience may often be better at communicating with another person facing similar challenges. They may be better equipped in helping to de-escalate certain situations. Hence, I would suggest that should a multi-stakeholder committee be considered, we need to include persons with lived experience as mentioned by Mr Lee from Resilience Collective.

With a troubled mind, I consulted psychiatrist Dr Muni Winslow for his advice and guidance.

Since the release of the Second Reading of the Bill, Dr Winslow has received calls of concern from his community. Allow me to share Dr Winslow's views and this is with his permission: "I think the key drawback is that most police knowledge is no better than a layman. It would be helpful if all public-facing police personnel get at least some basic training in identifying symptoms of mental illness – the different types – as it will help them in de-escalating violence, for example, alcoholism and domestic violence and so forth; and identifying signs of dangerousness in folks with mental conditions. Autism spectrum and ADHD folk are considered neurodivergent and more likely to have confrontations with the law as they do not know how to back down, or sometimes, cannot."

With resources available in Singapore, it would be good to see all MHA personnel, within a year if the Bill passes, given some training in assessing the various types of mental health conditions and skills to de-escalate and bring them to a safe place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise the concern I have for families with children with autism. They should continue to be free to enjoy public outings and all forms of suitable recreation as citizens. They may have a teenager, young or older adult with autism and we are all familiar that in some instances meltdowns happen.

Can we get an assurance that nothing in the passing of this Bill will diminish their rights or be disrupted in day-to-day living because a member of the public chooses to seek the intervention of the Police prematurely? In addition, persons with certain other conditions may also find themselves under greater scrutiny just because they exhibit behaviour different from what society perceives as the norm? We must not be seen to have taken three steps forward only to take two steps backwards.

Mr Jeffery Tan, CEO of Mindset Care Limited, a charity established to make a tangible difference to the Singapore mental health community, had this to share with me, "To borrow the phrase from Professor Tommy Koh, as a 'loving Singaporean critic', we often 'overengineer' solution to situations. In so doing, we have the tendency to inordinately apply more 'head logic' than 'heart logic'. If it is eminently clear that the person is struggling under a mental illness, it begs the question whether arresting the individual will offer any valuable solution to the situation at hand and more importantly, the individual. We do not need more 'head logic', which is arrest and apprehension, in this proposed change. Instead, we need more 'heart logic'. Admittedly, the latter may take more effort, time, and resources – but that is the reflection of an enlightened and matured community and not just one that focuses only on expedience and efficiency. As a maturing society that seeks to more inclusive, there is need for us to have greater tolerance, understanding, compassion and a clear demonstration of heart and not just head. The maintenance of public safety and order is important for the community. This is not denied. But this cannot be at the expense of those in the community that will need our help and support – the weak, the vulnerable, the mentally unwell."

Mr Tan concludes with this question: is it possible that the proposed change in the law is not addressing the real issues that need to be focused on?

If this House passes this Bill, I can see the silver lining should we consider the following.

I see a silver lining in a better equipped law enforcement team, because we will also train them in basic knowledge of mental health conditions. Therefore, could we delay implementation of the new law, if passed, until the Home Team has been equipped?

I see a silver lining because we have seen many from across the mental health sector come forward and speak up. All these voices bring us better understanding as a community, greater public awareness, hopefully, with more care and compassion and understanding and resulting in overall improvement in our support systems. This will lead us closer to normalising mental health and wellness.

I see a sliver lining because we all now know that trauma in recovery is something we must prevent.

I see a silver lining because the elephant in the room can be debated for the benefit of all who continue to suffer in silence.

I see a silver lining as persons in recovery will be given every opportunity and every support to do so at their own pace and with respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this House continues to hold the key to better mental health and wellness in our nation. Many concerns have been raised, many questions have been asked. MHA has come forward with at least three clarifications that I am aware of on the proposed new law in response to concerns. The hon Minister has also given some background and clarifications in the introduction of the Bill. I have added some additional specific questions for the hon Minister to kindly address and clarify.

I continue to be unsettled when I think of the possible undesirable consequences of this Bill on individuals in our society. We want a Singapore that is both safe and at the same time inclusive and respectful. I trust the hon Minister will give us the assurances that not just Members in this House need but also to the persons in recovery, their families, their caregivers and the mental health professionals and healthcare staff.

I also acknowledge the Minister will need to give equal assurance to the public and continue to give unwavering support to the excellent work of the Home Team.

Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak on the proposed amendments to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act and the Police Force Act. They have been a topic of passionate discussion and I wish to convey some concerns and seek clarifications on behalf of those we serve.

As we debate these amendments, we need to ensure that these changes enable our police officers to effectively discharge their duties while providing care and support for individuals struggling with mental health issues, as well as their loved ones and caregivers.

Firstly, with the proposed changes granting additional authority to our officers, I would like to ask the Minister if the existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be updated to align with the proposed amendments.

I am concerned about the treatment of individuals who have been apprehended. These individuals are often in a vulnerable state, and it is imperative that we treat them with kindness and empathy. Can the Minister provide clarity on the procedures in place for their rehabilitation and treatment? How do we further improve these processes to ensure better outcomes for these individuals, providing them with the support and care that they need during these difficult times?

Moreover, I would like to inquire about the follow-up mechanisms with psychiatric institutions and social services. Ensuring continuity of care is essential for the holistic well-being of such individuals and their caregivers.

The amendment clarifies that the Police do not have to wait for an "imminent" danger before taking action. However, it is also essential to understand the limits of what constitutes "reasonable" to prevent overreach. The term "reasonable" is subjective and can vary from one situation to another. On the other hand, any ambiguity could force officers to hastily assess individuals' mental health, placing an unfair burden on them. Our officers must be adequately trained and supported to help them navigate these complex scenarios with compassion and discernment.

Secondly, we should also extend our care to individuals with mental health conditions who come into police custody. Training our officers in active listening and de-escalation techniques can enable them to interact with individuals experiencing mental health crises with greater empathy. For instance, an officer equipped with these skills can more effectively assist someone having a panic attack in public, using non-threatening body language and a gentle tone to offer support and guide the individual to appropriate help.

In other jurisdictions, there is a growing understanding of the importance of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and mental health professionals. These collaborative approaches between the two entities seek to integrate mental health expertise into police responses, prioritise the well-being of individuals in crisis, and reduce reliance on punitive measures. Advancing community mental health support will also mean increased support for Police Officers and downstream care for individuals.

A more collaborative approach between law enforcement and mental health professionals is essential to prioritise the well-being of individuals in crisis. Specialised Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programmes, like those in some jurisdictions, train officers to de-escalate mental health crises and connect individuals with services than resorting to arrest or apprehension. Research shows CIT improves officer attitudes and reduces injuries during crisis calls. Some Australian states employ unified teams of police and mental health professionals for specialised crisis responses. I am sure that the Ministry has considered some of the models for adaptation in our context and considered the challenges.

In addressing these challenges, enhancing upstream structural interactions between community mental health teams and Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) is crucial for better coordination of responses and support. Currently, Singapore boasts over 70 Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams (CREST) spread across various regions. I would like to ask the Minister for a status update on any current collaborative efforts between CREST teams and NPC teams. Furthermore, is the Ministry exploring models for fostering deeper collaboration in this regard?

Third, our front-line police officers, including younger National Servicemen, are often the first responders to incidents involving individuals in mental health crises. Witnessing such situations can take a significant emotional toll on them.

The Police Psychological Services Department (PPSD) offers a multi-faceted approach for officers. Dedicated para counsellors are present in all Police units and departments, while PPSD psychologists and Home Team psychiatrists offer professional in-house counselling. This is a good start. In line with these amendments, what more can we do to ensure our front-line officers’ mental health is taken care of?

Lastly, the decriminalisation of suicide was a significant legislative reform aimed at recognising mental health issues as medical concerns rather than criminal acts. I have received feedback expressing concerns about how this amendment aligns with the decriminalisation of suicide. Can the Ministry confirm whether the amendment grants powers to the Police to intervene when someone attempts to self-harm, with the assurance that the individual is unlikely to face charges but will instead receive mental health support?

In conclusion, Sir, as we discuss these amendments, let us ensure that our approach is rooted in empathy, care and collaboration to effectively support both individuals in crisis and those who serve in our front lines. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill.

This Bill suggests several important legislative changes. Notably, the Bill strives to enhance our nation's ability to combat scams, strengthen the effectiveness of Home Team operations, and ensure the seamless functioning of Yellow Ribbon Singapore.

Mr Speaker, to achieve the goals outlined in this Bill, several pieces of legislation will need to be amended. While I acknowledge the objectives and benefits of these amendments, I have some clarifications and suggestions that I will now discuss.

Before I do so, I would like to declare my current role as the Head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences and have previously worked as a Probation Officer for the Ministry of Social and Family Development.

Mr Speaker, my first comments relate to the proposed amendments to the Miscellenaous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906. The proposed changes are timely and necessary.

They are designed to bolster our defence against fraudulent activities and provide our law enforcement agencies with more robust mechanisms to tackle this evolving threat. By doing so, we are not only safeguarding the financial well-being of our citizens but also upholding the integrity of our nation's economy.

Mr Speaker, one significant concern that we must address is the ongoing threat of phishing. This malicious practice, where cybercriminals pose as legitimate entities, is a growing risk that threatens the operation of many organisations in Singapore.

An important question that we must ask ourselves is, how do we equip our employees to recognise and avoid such at? One potential answer lies in real-life simulations that mimic phishing scenarios. By providing employees with these scenarios, we enable them to understand the tactics of cybercriminals and equip them with the necessary skills to identify and avoid phishing attempts.

Mr Speaker, in adopting this approach, we need to find a balance and ensure that these simulations are realistic enough to enhance their learning. The quality of the training materials and the competence of the trainers play a vital role in the effectiveness of this experiential training.

Accordingly: would the Ministry consider encouraging individuals or organisations undertaking training exercises on phishing to use the Playbook for the Conduct of Phishing Simulation Exercises, as published by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore?

I will now turn my attention to the proposed amendments outlined in section 14D, which would exempt responsibility for transmitting a message that is false or fabricated for the legitimate purpose of raising public awareness.

This amendment has significant implications. On one hand, it could aid in spreading awareness about phishing and other cyber threats. On the other hand, it could potentially be misused by individuals with malicious intent.

Mr Speaker, false messages erode trust and can lead to scepticism even towards genuine cybersecurity warnings and advice. Given the potential for bad actors to exploit this exemption: what strategies are in place to minimise the risk of individuals being misled or confused by genuine cybersecurity warnings and advice?

Next, I welcome the introduction of Part 6A. These rules are indeed a significant step towards deterring the misuse of local SIM cards and I commend the Ministry for their proactive approach in addressing this issue.

I appreciate the safeguard in place as these offences are not used against those who are genuinely unaware of the unlawful act or those who are tricked into registration. This shows the Ministry's commitment to fairness and justice, and this is an important measure in protecting those who are manipulated into acquiring a SIM card or those who may not be aware that their action is illegal in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, the latest data on SIM card misuse paints a worrying picture, yet with the introduction of these amendments we will have an additional tool to combat this issue.

It is, however, important that we continue to monitor the situation closely and make necessary adjustments to ensure that this rule remains effective in preventing scams.

Just last month, The Straits Times reported, and I quote: "More than 300 people are being investigated for their involvement in more than 1,000 scam cases in which victims lost over $11 million".

On that note, I would like to clarify: what resources, including training, are being provided to the Anti-Scam Command (ASCom) to strengthen their expertise and capabilities? And what resources, including training, are being provided to general Home Team officers to increase their capacity to recognise, investigate and prosecute scams?

Additionally, with regards to section 39H, how does the Ministry work with telecommunication organisations and enforcement agencies outside of Singapore to prevent, investigate and prosecute scams?

Mr Speaker, my final consideration on this aspect of the amendment is related to the new section 40A on offences by corporations, and section 40B on offences by unincorporated associations or partnerships. I welcome these amendments, noting the high likelihood of bad actors using corporations and associations as a façade to conduct unlawful and criminal activities. On that note, I would like to clarify: what legislative provisions exist to hold individuals personally liable for scams perpetrated by individuals or entities for whom they are administratively or legally responsible?

Mr Speaker, my next point is related to expansion of police power that aims to enhance the efficacy of Home Team operations. Our Police force and law enforcement agencies work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of our nation and its people. However, to effectively carry out their duties, they require legislative support that is responsive to the evolving nature of security challenges.

The proposed amendments will provide our Home Team with the necessary legal framework to optimise their operations, streamline processes and enhance coordination between various agencies. This will undoubtedly result in a more efficient and cohesive approach towards maintaining law and order, as well as responding swiftly to emerging threats.

Mr Speaker, the concept of "law and order" is fundamental in our society, representing a holistic approach to preserving peace, stability, and justice. Being efficient is one pillar of law and order. The other pillar is transparency and legitimacy.

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to section 13 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 provide the police with the authority to apprehend those who are reasonably suspected of having a mental disorder and pose a potential risk to themselves or others, even if there is no imminent danger.

While I recognise the importance of this measure in protecting the public, it is essential to consider the potential drawbacks. Police are not mental health professionals and their interactions with individuals experiencing mental health crises can be complex and challenging. The use of this power must be balanced with the need to respect individual rights and dignity.

There are several arguments against police apprehending mentally ill individuals. Firstly, it may lead to an over-reactive approach, where individuals are apprehended based on their mental health status rather than their behaviour. Secondly, it could potentially criminalise mental illness, which is a stigma we should strive to avoid.

However, as highlighted by the Minister earlier, the purpose of section 13 is to authorise the detention of people living with mental illness to prevent harm that these individuals may inflict on others or themselves. In other words, to prevent a criminal act and to provide for their treatment and care.

Mr Speaker, it is crucial to provide the Police with comprehensive knowledge and training on how to handle individuals with mental health issues. This includes understanding the signs of a mental health crisis, developing specialised responses and learning how to de-escalate situations effectively.

On that note, I seek clarifications on the following issues.

What training is being provided to Police officers to ensure they understand and comply with the legal requirement that people can only be detained under section 13 as a last resort and only when they pose a danger to themselves or others?

What training is being provided to Police officers to increase their understanding of mental illness and how people living with mental illness may present or behave?

What training is being provided to Police officers to increase their capacity to interact sensitively and appropriately with people living with mental illness?

And what mechanisms are in place to protect the rights of people apprehended under section 13, including their right to independent legal advice?