Hansard, Wednesday, 10 January 2024

1 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the call by the UN Climate Change Conference 2023 (COP28) to accelerate zero and low emission technologies (a) what has been the progress in Singapore to increase renewable energy capacity and to improve the overall rate of energy efficiency; and (b) what are the plans ahead to accelerate towards the COP28 goals.

2 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the plans for operationalising the UAE Consensus from COP28 including the transition away from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050; and (b) what is the timetable for this transition in Singapore.

3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how will Singapore contribute to global efforts agreed at the global stockttake at the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) to (i) transition away from fossil fuels to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science (ii) triple renewable energy capacity globally and double energy efficiency by 2030 and (iii) phase down unabated coal power, reduce methane emissions and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 1, 2 and 3 on today's Order Paper by a combined reply?

Yes, you may. Please proceed.

Thank you. At the UN Climate Change Conference 2023 (COP28), Singapore co-facilitated negotiations on mitigation and the first global stocktake that contributed to the successful adoption of the UAE Consensus. The UAE Consensus calls on countries to transition away from fossil fuels, accelerate the phasedown of unabated coal power, phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency globally by 2030, among others.

Singapore supports the UAE Consensus. As part of our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS), Singapore has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, despite being a small, alternative energy disadvantaged city state with many natural limitations on our climate action measures. Our LEDS is aligned with the UAE Consensus.

Over the past few years, many Members have spoken extensively about the urgent need to address climate change – in particular, during the two climate Motions that have been endorsed by this House, as well as the debate on the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill. I am glad that Members, including those from the Opposition, who advocated for a carbon tax above $100 per tonne, agree that more should be done to support our net-zero goals. We have raised our carbon tax to $25 per tonne from 1 January 2024 and will progressively raise it further, to between $50 and $80 by 2030. Our carbon tax ensures that the negative externalities of carbon emissions are properly priced, and is an effective mechanism to spur economy-wide decarbonisation efforts to achieve our net-zero ambition.

At COP28, Singapore signed on to the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency pledge, which is a collective global effort that aims to triple the world's renewable energy generation capacity and double annual energy efficiency by 2030. Singapore has been accelerating our energy transition as part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. We have doubled our solar power deployment since 2021 to over 1,000 megawatt-peak (MWp) currently. We aim to at least double this deployment again, to achieve our target of at least 2,000 MWp by 2030.

We are also partnering like-minded countries to import low-carbon electricity from the region. Last year, the Government issued Conditional Approvals for 4.2 gigawatts of imports from Cambodia, Indonesia and Vietnam. When implemented by 2035, these projects will meet about 30% of our electricity needs. They will also support our neighbours' development of renewable energy projects and serve as building blocks towards our shared vision of an ASEAN Power Grid.

Beyond solar power and electricity imports, we will need to leverage other energy alternatives to further expand our low-carbon energy capacity. We are working closely with the industry and academia to realise the potential of low-carbon technologies. These include research and development as well as industry projects in areas such as innovative solar power deployment, transport and utilisation of hydrogen and ammonia, carbon capture, utilisation and storage, as well as advanced geothermal energy.

The Government is progressively updating our regulations to facilitate the adoption of these low-carbon alternatives. Last year, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) announced new emissions standards for power generation units, which will require all new generation units to be at least 30% hydrogen-ready by volume, with the ability to be retrofitted to become 100% hydrogen-ready in the future.

In the area of energy efficiency, Singapore's overall energy efficiency is already much better than the global average. According to the International Energy Agency, Singapore's energy intensity in 2019 was almost half that of global energy intensity. This has been achieved through consistent efforts to identify and realise energy efficiency opportunities. For example, the National Environment Agency (NEA) enhanced the Energy Conservation Act in 2017 to require energy-intensive industrial facilities to conduct regular energy efficiency assessments. Another example is the Economic Development Board (EDB)'s Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions, which supports businesses in improving their energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For households, our Climate Friendly Households Programme continues to help eligible households offset the higher cost of energy-efficient appliances.

Accelerating the energy transition in Singapore will require a whole-of-nation effort. The Government, businesses, communities and individuals must all contribute to this overall goal.

Even so, no country can tackle climate change alone. Despite our natural limitations in size and natural resources, Singapore is committed to do our part as a responsible global citizen and will continue to work with like-minded countries and companies for a cleaner, greener future.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. My first question is, as the Minister was at COP28, I would like to hear from her whether she is satisfied with the overall outcomes of COP28.

The second question is about this call to triple renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of efficiency by 2030. It is a major undertaking, notwithstanding the plans we have in place. I would like to ask the Minister if Singapore is confident to achieve these goals.

My third question is, in COP28, there were also increasing calls for the use of nuclear energy as one of the renewable sources, with the goal to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. I believe there were 20-over countries that came up with a declaration, including the United States (US) and some Asian countries like Japan and Korea. Can I ask the Minister whether this declaration will have any bearing on the Government's position on nuclear energy as another source of renewable energy?

Mr Speaker, with regard to the first question about the overall outcome of COP28, I think we must look at it in the context that it is being held. It is being held in a period where there is high energy inflation, there is also great geopolitical contention. But the fact that all parties were able to come together and again, re-affirm that the UN Climate Change Conference (COP) is the only relevant multilateral platform for climate discussion and negotiations is a major undertaking.

On top of that, I think there were several improvements and I would say movements in negotiations. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is one major achievement – it is the first time that such language has appeared. But more importantly, it is that with a global stocktake, there was a louder and more concerted call to accelerate action in this decade. Climate projections, temperatures are telling us that we need to do more in the near term. The focus of the global stocktake has been a lot on implementation. What the Member has spoken about – whether it is three times renewable energy capacity, two times on energy efficiency improvements – these are going into the so-called "nitty gritty". It is no longer just setting net-zero targets, but, really, what is the pathway to 1.5 °C. There were some very specific recommendations and agreements. I think that is a major achievement of COP28.

There are many other details. It is a very extensive and comprehensive process, and it does not do justice to the process by just answering supplementary questions. It deserves a much more extensive discussion.

Having said that, I think it is important and useful for Members to also understand that this being a global UN process, we need to pay attention to the language that is being used. Although there is a consensus, the basis of the consensus is still on the basis of the Paris Agreement, where some of the basic values – for example, common but differentiated responsibilities, nationally determined contributions (NDCs), national context – are still relevant.

Where we have goals, such as three times renewable energy capacity, two times energy efficiency improvements, these are global collective measures. The implementation is still dependent on countries incorporating those into their NDCs, taking into consideration their own national context.

On nuclear energy, that is the same basis. A few countries have a declaration, they have started to look at it separately. These declarations outside the negotiation documents are helpful. Because these are the initiatives that are pushing movements, directions and developments in technologies, in finance and in global action.

So, we need to look at it in two ways: look at what is happening outside the negotiations, look at what is in the documents and see how Singapore can leverage on some of the developments, such as the development of technology in nuclear energy. This is an area where we have some interest to understand the development, because we think that the advanced nuclear technology offers us some potential. In terms of safety, there is better safety in these technologies, and also, in terms of cost competitiveness. These are two very important metrics that feed into our energy decision.

We have not made a decision on adopting nuclear energy, but we are building capabilities to understand how these technologies are advancing and also, how these technologies can potentially be of help to Singapore.

I hope that answers the Member's questions.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first, following up to the previous supplementary question and in relation to my original Parliamentary Question, given that this is the goal that we have, is there any timetable or transitional plan or milestones that we will be setting along the way in order to achieve this in the next couple of decades or so.

The second supplementary question is, the Minister also mentioned at COP28 that we will not be claiming from the Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund. I just wanted to understand whether or not we will be contributing to the L&D Fund today or any time in the future.

I think I have gone into some extent on how we are progressing on our climate action. In fact, from the Singapore Green Plan that was announced in 2021, we have been updating some of the sub-goals almost annually. Even though there are five pillars and two horizontals, there have been movements on every vertical, every pillar of work that we are doing. I would encourage the Member to watch this space, to give us suggestions as to how we can move further. And I think the Member has the assurance that all the participating Ministries are working flat out towards our net-zero 2050 goals.

It is by no means easy, given our constraints. In fact, we are looking at some of the alternatives that have yet to come on stream, such as low-carbon hydrogen that is so important in our energy transition but which we are still in the process of developing a viable, commercial market for it. So, do not misunderstand that although there is a lot of effort, there are also many, many challenges. But we are not afraid of challenges, and we will do our very best for climate action and for Singapore's decarbonisation.

On L&D, can I understand from the Member whether it is the Workers' Party's position that Singapore should contribute and, if so, what would the Member suggest that we contribute?

Mr Louis Chua.

I thank the Minister. I think there was also a related supplementary question that was asked last year. I know that the Minister mentioned that we will be facilitating countries to claim from the L&D fund. But at the same time, in light of what was also shared by my fellow colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, about contributions to international funds and all that, I think we do have a role to play in terms of — we may not be the main contributors to this from the historical context, but I do believe that we do have a part to play in terms of using finance terms, introducing, say, seed funding, to enable people to join in the cause and to show people that, look, even though Singapore is small and resource-constrained, we are also doing our part in that regard.

I did not get a clear question from the Member because the Workers' Party has been asking us: are we contributing to L&D? So, I just wanted to know whether the Member is asking us to contribute to the L&D funds specifically. But it is okay. I think that our position is quite aligned, that we will do our part in finance.

Senior Minister Teo has announced an initiative called "FAST-P" to basically galvanise up to $5 billion in seed funding and also in blended finance to help in climate action. But L&D is very specific. It has a specific purpose – loss and damage. This is where I think countries that are looking to claim are looking for outright grants. So, we believe that we can play a role to facilitate, to develop capabilities, to do technological transfers, and capability and capacity-building.

That is where Singapore's strength and role as a financial centre can come into play. So, we do not think that our current capacity or resources would be meaningful in contributing grants in L&D, but we definitely will be supporting other developing countries, particularly in the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) grouping, to tap on the L&D fund because they are most badly affected. But if the Member would like to suggest a sum to the Government to contribute to L&D, I would really welcome his suggestion.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions and I thank the Minister for her earlier answers.

My first supplementary question is that Singapore set up the Singapore Pavilion at COP28. Could the Minister share what were the objectives behind the Pavilion and also the cost and resources that were involved in setting up the Pavilion? And how does the Government assess the gains that we have made through the Pavilion and the efforts of our delegation at COP28 in contributing to the agenda and objectives of COP28?

My second supplementary question is that moving forward, what are the Government's shorter-term goal and emphasis in the run-up to the submission of Singapore's first biennial transparency report in 2024 later this year and also as we submit our updated NDC at COP30?

Finally, how can Singapore play its part globally or regionally to engage and persuade, by both actions and words, the transition efforts from fossil fuels, including unabated coal power, reducing methane emissions and phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies?

Mr Speaker, I would put through you, to ask the Member to, perhaps, file a separate Parliamentary Question on Singapore Pavilion because, by itself, it is quite a topic and it is not related directly to his question.

Secondly, it is about the biennial transparency report as well as NDC. The preparation is in progress. There is some time for us to do it, until the end of this year. So, I think we are making good progress. Unabated coal, fossil fuel subsidies, as I mentioned in my reply, our LEDS is actually aligned to the UAE Consensus. So, we do not think we need to make major adjustments because it is out of sync or out of place with what has been agreed. So, we will, basically, progress with what we have already planned under the Singapore Green Plan.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. May I draw the Minister's attention to my speech from the 2022 Budget Debate two years ago where I spoke about Singapore, the climate crisis, our climate ambition and our energy security.

In particular, can I ask the Minister, given the speed of developments in the climate space, including what commentators described as the risk of a climate endgame with catastrophic change upon the world, will Singapore – at a whole-of-Government level – look at moving ahead of the market in certain strategic areas?

Two years ago, I had asked about Singapore and a potential position as a hydrogen hub. The Minister mentioned this in her earlier answers. Can I ask: is there a role for us more actively moving ahead of the market in a calibrated way so that we can be the first mover and not last mover or too late to move when the market finally evolves.

I thank the Member. Indeed, I think this is where our Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and Ministry of Transport (MOT) folks are working flat out to be ahead but, at the same time, leveraging on the massive investments in R&D that is going into new areas.

The world is looking for new solutions – solutions in hydrogen and carbon capture, for example, are not an exclusive arena for Singapore. And given the kind of resources that are available globally, it will serve Singapore's interest to really tap on and leverage on such global investments.

But there are certain areas that we want to invest in. So, as I have mentioned in my speech, already in our power generation system, we are making provision for hydrogen to be introduced as an alternative fuel.

In the maritime sector, for example, we are also pioneering, with other ports, green shipping with alternative fuels, learning how to handle, store and move new types of fuels.

So, we are moving in many, many different ways. Even in aviation, a similar undertaking is ongoing to really be at the cusp of change. The change is going to be massive. We will not be alone and we want to really be out there, to be early enough to tap the change and not to be left behind, but at the same time, also capture opportunities that may arise.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, just a clarification regarding my third supplementary question. I thank the Minister again for her answers earlier.

Regarding my third supplementary question, yes, I did hear the Minister in her original answer. This is regarding the transition efforts from fossil fuel, including unabated coal power, reducing methane emissions and phasing out inefficient fuel subsidies. My supplementary question pertains to us living in an area where our neighbouring countries may use a lot of coal, for example. So, I am asking how Singapore can engage our neighbours or other countries globally by action and words to persuade other countries to journey along this transition as well.

I thank the Member and would like to commend Mr Dennis Tan for his ambition to have Singapore play a regional and global role in climate action. We will try to do our best by being, I would say, an active partner in global negotiations, as well as propagating, advocating at the regional level. So, whether it is at ASEAN or other regional groupings, we will do our best.

For example, we bring our climate projections, the 3rd National Climate Change Study (V3), to many of the ASEAN fora, whether it is on agriculture, environment or water. We also bring in finance. Our Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) as well as our banks are working actively to look at how we can have a taxonomy that allows transition energy and transition fuels to be financed so that, as the Member said, neighbouring countries that still have a lot of coal-fired power plants are able to benefit from finance to help them transit.

There are many, many opportunities for us to play a role. But ultimately, the decision, pace, direction and investment decisions have to be taken by the respective countries. That is why I think the UNFCCC remains such an important multilateral forum for us to have those discussions on the global basis.

Last supplementary question on this topic. Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, can I just ask about the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs)? I think various sectors have just released their refreshed ITMs 2025. Could I ask whether MSE is monitoring these ITMs to make sure they are aligned with our goals of reaching net-zero emissions by 2025, and also whether they are now consistent with the COP28 consensus that the Minister just talked about?

I thank the Member for his question. ITMs do not come under the purview of MSE per se. We do have ITMs that are under MSE that have to do with environmental services and waste management. But I will bring that as a suggestion to my colleagues who are responsible for the respective ITMs.

4 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what are the Ministry's internal guidelines on the use of diplomatic bags; (b) whether there are any previous cases of diplomatic bags being used for personal rather than official matters; and (c) whether the Ministry is taking any steps to manage the risk of the misuse of diplomatic bags.

5 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how often are checks conducted to ensure that diplomatic bags are utilised for their intended purposes; (b) how many instances of egregious use have been detected in the past five years; and (c) what measures, if required, will be introduced to ensure that diplomatic privileges are not abused.

Mr Speaker, the diplomatic bag is used for the conveyance of official documents. Limited quantities of personal items are allowed to enable our staff to fulfil their overseas duties effectively. So, for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some limited medical supplies were also sent to our staff.

There have been no instances of questionable use of the diplomatic bag in the past five years, except for a case that is presently before the Courts.

We have a system and guidelines in place for the proper use of the diplomatic bag and we will review our processes periodically.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Are spot checks carried out on the diplomatic bags now and then just to make sure that it is not used for personal items?

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I should have clarified that I am also answering Question No 5.

You are right. I had assumed so and I was going to ask you next.

Yes. In response to the Member's supplementary question, I will, in fact, go a little bit beyond that. The staff have to declare the items which are going in the diplomatic bag. The items must not contravene any import or export restrictions imposed, either by Singapore or by the receiving state.

And like all other baggage that goes on board planes, they are also subject to x-ray surveillance and, of course, any other checks that are legally permissible under diplomatic practice.

6 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider (i) increasing the frequency of its biennial routine inspection and (ii) enhancing the monitoring and reporting requirements of all licensed cord blood banking service providers.

7 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health in view of the incident involving damaged cord blood units by a commercial cord blood banking service provider (a) whether the Ministry has received any reports or requests for assistance from affected parties; (b) whether the Ministry has been directly supporting the affected clients; and (c) if so, how.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 6 and 7 in today's Order Paper.

Yes, you may.

Sir, all cord blood banks in Singapore are currently subject to scheduled inspections every two years to assess their compliance with regulatory requirements under the Healthcare Services Act (HCSA). In addition, the Ministry of Health (MOH) may conduct additional visits, including unannounced visits, if there are any specific areas of concern or suspected lapses.

Arising from the Cordlife incident, MOH will review the regulatory requirements under the HCSA and the Healthcare Services (Cord Blood Banking Service) Regulations, including frequency of inspections and other aspects of inspections as well as the monitoring and reporting requirements. However, in reviewing these regulations, we also need to be mindful not to add inappropriate costs and regulatory compliance burden. We need to take a risk-based approach.

Many clients of Cordlife have approached MOH for assistance. Most have wanted Cordlife to rectify their shortcomings and this will be MOH's supervision priority as investigations are being conducted. MOH has also received enquiries about transferring cord blood units to another provider. We have engaged the other storage providers, who are prepared to assist. MOH has advised that clients wait for the investigation to complete, likely in a few weeks' time, before deciding whether to do so. Transferring cord blood units at ultra-low temperatures is a complex task and carries risks that are not insignificant.

Ms Soh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have one clarification. I understand that inspections are carried out every two years. Is there a rationale behind why is it two years? In view of this Cordlife incident, can we also explore to see if there are any possibilities of having it on an annual basis instead, to prevent the recurrence of this unfortunate incident?

Sir, I thank Ms Soh for the supplementary question. We are reviewing the regulatory requirements and so, one of the things that we will be reviewing is the frequency as well as the type of inspections, audits and review.

8 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what safeguards are in place to ensure the suitability of adults who express interest in adopting children, especially children who have endured traumatic pasts; and (b) what measures exist to prevent incidents of abuse by such adults.

9 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will (i) enhance existing training schemes of social workers and professionals handling cases of vulnerable underaged persons to detect sexual and other forms of abuse and (ii) strengthen its due diligence and surveillance over the youth development firms the Ministry works with that have exposure to vulnerable underaged persons.

Sir, may I have your permission to take both questions – Question Nos 8 and 9 – together?

Please proceed.

Ms Nadia and Ms He probably have in mind a recently reported case where a child from a children's home was sexually abused by a kith caregiver. Kith caregivers are adults who are not related to a child and meet the child through family or community connections, and are not registered as foster parents. I would like to clarify that while the offender and his wife had expressed the desire to adopt the child, they had not taken any steps to start the adoption process. I would also like to clarify that the offender's firm was not working with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), but directly with the children's home.

Ms Nadia asked about the safeguards in the adoption process. The primary consideration when processing applications for adopting children is the child's welfare and best interest of the child. There are various steps in the adoption process to ensure this.

During the first stage, prospective adopters must undergo a comprehensive Adoption Suitability Assessment. This is conducted by social service staff from an accredited adoption agency. Prospective adopters are assessed on a range of factors including their ability to provide a protective and nurturing environment, their motivations for adoption, stability of the marital relationship and overall capacity to meet the child's needs. Prospective adopters also undergo screening for risk factors, including criminal records.

If found suitable, prospective adopters receive a favourable Home Study Report. This allows them to search for a child to adopt through adoption agencies or their own contacts. Once a child is identified, the adopters then make an application to the Court. As part of the adoption proceedings, the Court will appoint MSF as the Guardian-in-Adoption.

Where the child is already being cared for by the family, an MSF officer will conduct a social investigation to check on the safety and well-being of the child in the family, including whether the prospective adopters are providing good care for the child and meeting the child's needs. This stage involves interviews with the child about the child's views on the adoption, checks with character referees and consultations with the applicants' support network, which could include household members, friends, teachers and social service professionals working with the family.

Ms He asked how the contact between children and staff, volunteers and vendors is overseen. Social workers and professionals employed at our children homes receive compulsory training to recognise signs and symptoms of sexual and other forms of abuse. Professionals at MSF's accredited adoption agencies also receive training to help them identify abuse.

Staff, volunteers and personnel engaged by children's homes are screened for prior criminal records before they have contact with children. In the recently reported case, these procedures were followed by the home. The offender did not have a prior criminal record.

This incident is very regrettable, and all the professionals and social service workers who have been in contact with the child are shaken. Based on our knowledge, the children's home had made every effort to perform due diligence on persons who have contact with the child and to supervise the contact. The social service professionals had also followed up actively with supervised visitations, check-ins and house visits.

While every effort is made to ensure adopted children enter families that provide a safe environment, it is not possible to predict with absolute certainty how the relationship between an adopted child and the adoptive parents develops.

We are very grateful to the teacher whom the child confided in. This shows the critical role of having trusted individuals in one's life. We would like to call out to everyone, whether a teacher, neighbour or friend, to promptly report abuse when they come to know of it or suspect it. We need the collective help of everyone to protect the safety of our children.

Mr Speaker, the MSF will continue to emphasise to the homes the importance of selecting and training their volunteers well, and to constantly monitor their residents' safety and well-being. At the same time, we should not let this incident make homes reluctant to work with community partners and volunteers, many who do good work and befriend children and run recreational and other activities for them out of a desire to help the children. It would be a shame if our homes isolated children from well-intentioned volunteers who wish to help them.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Indeed, with many other Singaporeans, I think we were very disturbed when this case first came to light. I would like to ask three follow-up supplementary questions.

First, if the Minister of State could provide more details of this kith caregiver scheme, in terms of how the volunteers are assessed to be suitable and managed over a long period of time, that would be very helpful.

Second, given that the abuse, very unfortunately, happened over a prolonged period and throughout this time the youth was actually receiving social service support. What improvements are the home and MSF putting in place to try and avoid from such incidents happening again?

Finally, given that MSF does work through various agencies, be it through the adoption agencies or other social service agencies (SSAs), such as this kith caregiver scheme, how does MSF ensure the rigour of supervision, check-ins, home reports, and how is this applied equally across the different agencies that MSF works with?

I thank Ms Nadia for her questions. On the first point, there are two schemes that we are talking about. You had mentioned kith caregivers and volunteers. There could also be instances where volunteers are not kith caregivers. So, I would touch on both the points.

For kith caregivers, before a caregiver is identified to provide care for a child or a young person under MSF's care, like I have mentioned before, background checks and assessments are conducted by trained professionals. For this particular case, MSF had conducted background checks on the man and his wife before they were identified as caregivers for the child. They had no adverse records.

Trained professionals had also assessed the couple as capable of providing adequate and safe care for the child. There had also been paced contacts between the couple and the young person that had ranged from supervised visitations at the treatment centre to outings and home leave, before the couple provided full-time care for the child.

There were regular therapy sessions, check-ins and home visits conducted by the professionals, both prior to and during the child's home leave and while under the couple's care. And during these interactions, the professionals had observed that the couple provided supportive care and they did not identify any signs or symptoms indicative of sexual abuse by the caregiver.

The child did not disclose any abuse to the professionals until she informed her schoolteacher in November 2020. From what I understand, the sexual abuse was between the period of September 2020 and November 2020, whereas the interactions that the child had with this caregiver started in 2019.

Coming back to volunteers, which was another aspect of the Member's question, I had mentioned before that all volunteers in MSF-funded programmes who have contact with clients, will need to undergo suitability assessments and background checks. These are run by the agencies. So, as part of the suitability assessment, all prospective volunteers must provide information about their areas of interest in volunteering, the skills and expertise that they have to offer, any medical concerns and any prior criminal convictions.

The SSA will then review the submitted information and interview these prospective volunteers to better understand their motivations and abilities to support the SSA's programmes and engagement with clients. Background checks are also conducted to verify the information which has been provided including screening for criminal records and to identify other risk factors including adverse history.

Interviews with character references and checks with other SSAs where the prospective volunteer may have previously volunteered in, are also performed.

I will now like to go to her second question, which I believe was about what more we can do, if I am not wrong.

I had talked about the training that all social service professionals have to undergo. For staff at children's homes, they have to attend compulsory training courses. This include understanding the legal frameworks and the legislation that protect children in state care. They also have to undergo training and strategies to identify child abuse and how to keep children safe. This training is provided by the NCSS Social Service Institute (SSI) in Singapore.

The training courses are either developed by MSF or in partnership with local stakeholders from the social service, education, health and law enforcement sectors. The training includes evidence-based assessment frameworks, which are recognised internationally, to promote safety and well-being for children and young persons at risk of neglect or abuse. And this training has been contextualised to the Singapore context.

Just to give a few examples of this training. The training courses include introduction to the child protection framework, the sector-specific screening guide and the child abuse reporting guide.

The Member may recall that we had a task force on family violence, and family violence includes many forms of violence, including sexual abuse. This was co-chaired by myself and Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. We had earlier recommended to develop consistent, standardised assessment and screening tools to enable frontline professionals to better identify and detect family violence cases, of which sexual abuse is one form of it.

This is to manage the risks and needs of survivors and also perpetrators, and know when to report cases.

MSF will progressively be launching a suite of tools to ensure a more robust and consistent decision-making system for the domestic violence sector. So, this is something that we are working on to make sure that not only has there been training provided to social service professionals, but that there are standardised assessment tools so that the social service professionals know what the baselines are and under what circumstances to report.

Finally, on the Member's last point, MSF meets with the SSAs regularly. The SSI is also a platform where the SSAs come together regularly to receive up-to-date training.

Learning from this episode, I think it is a stern reminder to all of us that we will continue to focus on making sure our social service professionals are up-to-date when it comes to training, to recognise family violence, domestic violence, sexual abuse and to know when to report, what are the symptoms to look out for. But at the same time, I think it is also a clear reminder to all of us that we have to work with many other community partners, including teachers, because in this case, it was a teacher who reported after the child confided in the teacher.

We must recognise that even as our social service professionals continue with supervised visitations, home check-ins, house visits, this may not take place on a daily basis. Whereas if we compare that to a child's interaction with a teacher at school or a neighbour to the home, these are almost daily interactions, if not daily interactions; there is more opportunity for a child to share instances of neglect and abuse. I think this is a call to action for more members of the public to be aware of what are the signs of family violence, domestic abuse, sexual abuse.

MSF has been very active in rolling out MSF's Family and Domestic Violence Awareness Training, which is part of the Break the Silence campaign. We have reached out to 7,550 individuals, which include preschool teachers, students at the National Institute of Education (NIE), teachers in our foreign system schools. And we will continue in this effort to make sure that more members of the public are aware of the signs to look out for and in so doing, all of us can better protect the safety of our children.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a couple of supplementary questions. The first is, I think the Minister of State mentioned earlier about the importance that teachers can play in this. I just wanted to know, is there and what is the basic training given to preschool educators and assistants to enable them to recognise these signs? Is there a very general training that is available to these preschool educators to enable them to detect signs and symptoms of abuse in children, given that children of this age are usually less able to articulate or verbalise what is happening to them?

My second supplementary question relates to, when we talk about training given to educators and to people who work within the social services sector, especially those with vulnerable young children, we talk about reporting and understanding the reporting framework. I would like to check whether this training that is given to them also includes training about how best they can respond initially to a child coming up to them and telling them potentially that they have been — or recognising that this child might actually be a victim? I am just wondering whether or not there is basic training given to teach them how to respond and how best to first respond to these children, so that these children are not further traumatised or are better protected.

I thank the Member for her two supplementary questions. On the first point, the MSF's family and domestic violence awareness training has been rolled out. I mentioned that we have engaged 7,550 individuals, many of whom are teachers. We have a curriculum in place and the topmost in this curriculum includes sharing with teachers what are the different forms of abuse.

I use the term "family violence" but actually, within this context, there are different forms of it, such as physical violence, sexual abuse, neglect, psychological and emotional abuse. So, we teach our teachers who come for this training that all these forms of neglect and abuse, all come under the ambit of family and domestic violence.

We fully recognise that victims or survivors may respond differently, especially when we are dealing with children. That is why we have focused on teachers, because they are an important touchpoint with children and young persons. So, in the training, we also train our teachers to recognise how children and young persons may respond or show symptoms of such abuse and neglect. For instance, is the child more withdrawn than usual? Are there visible marks on the child? Is the child adverse to physical contact? Are there changes in the child's behaviour? Has the child lost appetite, not interested anymore in the games and the activities that the child used to be interested in?

Some of our SSAs also use play therapy. We have observed that some of the children, because of their young age, they are not able to verbalise their personal experience, not able to talk about it in first person terms. Instead, they have to use toys, other objects and talk about it from a third-person perspective because that is their way of protecting themselves from further hurt. These are ways that children and young persons can communicate. Our teachers and our social service professionals are made aware and sensitive to the point that children may respond in such ways. So, that is the first point on what we aim to do and continue to try to do through the family and domestic violence awareness training.

On the second point, we have a specialised division called the Clinical and Forensic Psychology Services team which provides specialised psychological services to children, youths and their family, and in particular, they have a good understanding of how to understand the profile and needs of children who have undergone trauma and abuse, and how to communicate with these children and their families. We will look at how to ensure that this expertise is also further translated and communicated to frontline professionals, which include the teachers and social service professionals that I had talked about.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. Minister of State, with all due respect, this is a case of a child who first witnessed her mother's suicide and then was sexually abused by her own biological father, before then being sexually abused by this fatherly figure. I think what many people truly want to know is beyond training, how do we improve the current processes? How is the home looking at improving its current protocol, recognising that constant, or even daily check-ins, are too resource-intensive? How do we really strengthen the rigour applied across the different MSF agencies to ensure that this does not happen again, as much as possible?

I thank the Member for her follow-up questions. I would say this: we would spare no effort when it comes to training our social service professionals to identify signs of abuse. That is their job and when social service professionals come to this profession and want to help children and young persons, in particular in children's homes, they are well intentioned and this is what they set out to do every day.

So, like I said, this incident is something that has shaken the community. Nobody wants to see this, in particular, the social service professionals who have been in contact with the child. We all know the traumatic experience of this child. It is terrible for a young person to have to undergo this in her own biological family, to seek refuge in a children's home and to have a glimpse of a future with a prospective adopter, only to be abused at their hands of this potentially trusted adult that she has come into contact with.

Like I said, this has shaken the community. What we will continue to do is that even though training sounds like a very generic term, it is a very important one because it is fundamental to equipping our social service professionals to have the means and the background to identify, to prevent and to stop abuse from happening.

I would like to further reinforce the point that the social service professionals, with all the resources that they have and they are managing many cases at the same time, they are in contact with the child through supervised visitations, check-ins, home visits. During COVID-19, there was the added element of check-ins over video. But, of course, post-COVID-19, we have replaced that with physical home visits because that, fundamentally, is the best way of assessing the environment.

But what is very, very important is that we really need members of the public to be together with us in this fight to protect our children. As you can imagine, for a young person or child who is experiencing this, you never know at which point and what might trigger the child to finally open up. When he or she decides to open up, then there must be a trusted adult nearby for him or her to open up to. In this case, it was a teacher who was open, who had obviously spent time building a nurturing and trusting relationship with the child; and it was one such teacher whom the child had trusted and whom she confided in.

So, I would say that the most fundamental, and perhaps the most comprehensive, way of tackling this issue is to raise greater awareness among more members of the public, in particular, persons who have immediate touchpoints with children and, therefore, I mentioned teachers, I mentioned neighbours, I mentioned friends.

At the same time, I would also like to share that we had rolled out the hand signal for help because we want to make sure that whether there is opportunity for the child to be in the community and should he or she decide to disclose this abuse, that he or she is able to reach out for help. We hope that members of the public will recognise what the sign means and please call the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment helpline or reach out to Social Service Offices' or our protection specialist centres, so that help can be given to this survivor victim of family violence as soon as possible.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive response to the safeguards that the Ministry has in place. Let me state at the outset that I fully agree with the exhaustive, almost to the point of onerous, processes that are necessary to protect the children in Home Study Reports and the various other safeguard mechanisms.

That said, I wish to caution against going too far in the other direction and let me elaborate. I have had residents who wish to adopt the children of their spouse from second marriages. Based on their feedback, this process tends to be very drawn out, and more often than not, the child is of a foreign nationality. And so, the Permanent Residency and citizenship process, based on what they have shared, is very lengthy.

I think, in this case, it is a little bit different just because at least one biological parent tends to be present.

I wonder whether the Ministry will, even as they review their processes to protect the child, not to go too far in the other direction and make the process of adoption more onerous, especially for children that result from second marriages.

I thank the Member for raising this. I suppose the Member has a specific case in his mind when he shared this. If he does not mind, perhaps after this Sitting, he could share the case with me offline, so we can take a closer look at it.

In general, for prospective adopters, what happens in the process is that they first have to attend a pre-adoption briefing and they have to undergo a comprehensive Adoption Suitability Assessment which is conducted by social service staff from an MSF-accredited adoption agency.

The prospective adopters have to first obtain a favourable Home Study Report that I mentioned earlier, before they can proceed to identify a child to adopt. If the child is a foreigner, and I think this is a point the Member raised in the case, the prospective adopter would have to apply for a Dependant's Pass, so that the child can reside in Singapore while undergoing the adoption process.

After the Dependant's Pass is granted, the prospective adopter can apply to the Family Justice Courts (FJC) to adopt. That would then be MSF's Guardian-in-Adoption, which is appointed by the FJC who will conduct social investigations. And by that, I mean checking in with the prospective adopters, family members, character referees, professionals and so on.

So, as you can see, there is a process in place. Whether it is overly onerous, at the onset, I think we have to agree in principle that we have to make sure the child's interest, welfare and well-being – whether or not a Singaporean or a foreign child – has to be front and centre. That is why we have all these processes in place, to make sure that we are able to assess and screen the prospective adopter, to make sure that they have the basic requirements and have the best situation to be able to care for such a child.

So, like I said, I guess the Member has a specific case in mind. If the Member does not mind, we could take this offline after this.

The last supplementary question on this, Mr Dennis Tan. Please keep it succinct; and likewise, the response.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask the Minister of State, whether she is able to share with the House what specific attributes MSF look for from the prospective adoptive parents of children, specifically where they may have a traumatic past.

I thank the Member for his question. At the stage of pre-adoption requirements, I had mentioned that the prospective adopter has to undergo a comprehensive Adoption Suitability Assessment and prospective adopters who wish to adopt a child with a traumatic history, will need to be assessed if they are able to meet the child's complex care needs. So, it is one layer above what I shared earlier.

I had also shared that we have a specialised Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service team. They have the expertise, given that they have dealt with children with a traumatic history before. So, their input will also be taken in. We will then see whether the prospective adopters have the capabilities to properly care for such a child, given the fact that the child has had this unfortunate experience of having a traumatic past previously.

10 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current take-up rate of the SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) for lifelong learning and training in the workforce; (b) how responsive have senior citizens and back-to-work women been in utilising their SFC for training and retraining; and (c) whether there are any problems that workers have highlighted in accessing their SFC.

11 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Education (a) as of 2023, how many eligible Singaporeans have fully utilised their SkillsFuture credits; (b) whether the SkillsFuture credits can be replenished for those who have used up their credits; and (c) what are the reasons why 70% of eligible individuals have not been utilising their SkillsFuture credits since 2015.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 10 and 11 together?

Please proceed.

The SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) empowers Singaporeans to take ownership of their learning and also skills development. The SFC, we all know, can be used to offset the fees for a wide range of skills-related courses, after Government course fee subsidies are applied.

Since launching the SkillsFuture movement, the training participation rate of individuals, including employer-sponsored training, has increased from 35% in 2015 to around 50% in 2022. Utilisation of SFC was higher among the younger age groups, at close to 40% for those in their 30s, while the utilisation rate of SFC for those aged 60 and above was around 25%. Only a small minority of Singaporeans have fully expended their SFC. These individuals can continue to enjoy substantial course fee subsidies of up to 90% provided by the Government.

In 2022, 192,000 Singaporeans used their SFC. This is an annual increase of around 12,000 per year, from 156,000 in 2019. This growth has been supported by efforts of SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and its partners to promote a culture of lifelong learning and help individuals to make informed choices, based on their training needs. These partners include the trade unions, enterprises, Community Development Councils (CDCs), trade associations and professional bodies.

For example, SSG works closely with these partners to expand the provision of skills and training advisory services at job fairs, workshops, community events and touchpoints across the island. Specific to older Singaporeans, SSG works with partner agencies to ensure that there is a suitable range of SFC-eligible courses to cater to their upskilling and lifelong learning needs, such as digital literacy, financial literacy and physical and mental well-being. There are also longer courses under the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme that incorporate career coaching and employment facilitation services. This is to help the trainees secure employment upon completion of these upskilling courses.

To further improve SFC utilisation, SSG has enhanced the user experience of mySkillsFuture portal, making it easier for users to navigate and search for suitable SFC courses for themselves. SSG has also simplified the claims submission process, based on users' feedback. In addition, to keep the courses relevant to the industry, SSG works closely with industry partners and regularly analyses data on job vacancies and skills in demand.

Given that mature workers require more support to pursue substantial reskilling and upskilling to stay employable, the Government is looking into providing a further substantial SFC top-up. And this will be for mature, mid-career Singaporeans. More details will be announced later this year.

Mr Speaker, I urge Singaporeans to make good use of the support available, provided by the Government, training institutions and SkillsFuture partners to advance their own lifelong learning and strengthen their career resilience.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the reply. I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First is that, is the Government happy with the state of affairs of the current SFC utilisation? Is 50% of the of the population using SFC the target? Is there a near-term three years or five years target of raising this even higher?

Second, for eligible Singaporeans, is there any way to encourage the remaining 50% on how they can use their SFC? What is the reason why they are not using it now, currently? Can the Ministry look into how to use AI or other methods to suggest courses for Singaporeans as well as identify skills or courses that they may take up? So, prompt them, push them a little bit, so that they can use this important fund to help improve their lives.

I thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak for the two good supplementary questions. First, is on whether we are happy with the state of the utilisation of SFC? I would say that we have seen good progress over the years. Especially since the launch of SFC, we see more Singaporeans understanding the needs of lifelong learning and upskilling; and employers too, seeing the benefit of upskilling their workers.

I would say that we know we are on the right trajectory. What is more important is that skills development and training are available and relevant, where the individuals need them. It is not limited to the use of SFC. Although SFC is a key pillar in this ecosystem, we know that employers too, also play a big role in shaping and supporting their workers and their new hires in upskilling. There are also, of course, free courses online that are widely available and that are very popular.

So, the utilisation of SFC is a proxy, I would say. We are moving in the right direction and we welcome suggestions by members of public, as well as Members in this Chamber, on what else we can do to improve the utilisation.

On why some Singaporeans might not be using SFC, some have cited lack of time and some have cited opportunity costs when they go for upskilling. So, we hope that the upcoming announcements for us to enhance SFC, as well as training allowance, will help more Singaporeans take the big step to go for upskilling.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, I am glad to hear that the Government is looking to further upscale or increase the SFC amount or top-ups.

My first question is, whether this new push in SFC, is there any change in emphasis, or any new emphasis? Is this like a version two of SFC that we are expecting? And secondly, the Minister of State mentioned about working with professional bodies. I thought it is a very good idea because they are more attuned to the changes, the professionals skill needs. And so, whether under the new push, are we going to work more closely with the professional bodies?

SkillsFuture is a movement. It is not a programme; by that, I mean it takes many parties to come together for this movement to create impact on individuals. We are glad that professional bodies are also coming onboard. SSG has, over the years, started partnering professional bodies to understand from them better what are the skill needs in the professional field that are envisaged and, working then, with training institutions to make available the upskilling opportunities.

We hope the announcements later this year on the SFC top-up for mid-career mature Singaporeans, will be a boost for this group. Because we have heard through Forward SG conversations and also, over time, feedback from the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), from the unions, that this group of workers, find it even more challenging to be re-employed, especially if they lose their job or if they are retrenched in their 40s or 50s. Substantial upskilling will mean opportunity costs and also a lot of resources, drawing on their savings. This is something that we ought to do, to give our mid-career, mature Singaporeans a better chance to have longer-term employability.

12 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) how many complaints has MAS received in the past year about MAS-licensed remittance companies not fulfilling their commitments to remit funds; (b) whether such remittance companies have a legal responsibility to ensure that funds reach their intended recipients and, if not, why not; and (c) what recourse do consumers have if the funds they placed with remittance companies are not remitted through no fault of their own.

13 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) whether remittance companies in Singapore that handled the failed transfers of monies to China have an obligation to ensure funds placed through them reach their intended destinations; and (b) whether an update can be provided on the cooperation with its counterpart agency in People's Republic of China to resolve the issue of frozen or confiscated remittances.

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

Yes, you may.

Sir, under the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act), licensed payment service providers or licensees must ensure that any money accepted for money transfer services is deposited into the designated recipient's accounts, within three to seven business days. Licensees must also provide proper documentary evidence to show that the recipient has received the money transmitted.

Licensees that fail to comply with the three to seven business days money transmission timeframe, unless agreed with their customers, would be in breach of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)'s requirements. MAS will undertake a supervisory review and/or take enforcement action for such breaches, including reviewing the licensee's suitability to hold a licence under the PS Act. The number of complaints directly received by MAS in 2023 on alleged failed remittances, is lower than 100 and amounts to less than 0.01% of total value remitted from Singapore.

Affected remitters should first approach the remittance company concerned for resolution if their intended recipients did not receive the money. If the matter cannot be resolved, affected remitters may file a claim in the Small Claims Tribunals for amounts up to S$30,000 or consider seeking legal advice on civil action to be taken against the remittance company.

In providing the money transfer services, licensees commonly pass the funds to intermediary institutions, based either in Singapore or overseas, for the onward transmission of the funds to recipients. These intermediaries include banks, operators of card payment systems or third-party agents.

Under MAS' requirements against money laundering and terrorism financing, licensees must conduct due diligence on the intermediary institutions they directly work with. If the licensee fails to perform the necessary due diligence, it will face regulatory or enforcement action by MAS.

For the recent disputes regarding remittances to China, the issues were not about failed remittances. For these cases, the funds had been successfully remitted and deposited into the recipient's bank accounts. However, these funds were frozen or forfeited by the PRC law enforcement agencies.

As of 15 December 2023, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has received more than 670 reports of funds remitted to China being frozen. MAS and SPF are seeking information from Chinese authorities to establish the reasons and concerns that led to the freezing of recipient bank accounts in China.

To minimise risks to consumers remitting funds to China, MAS has decided to temporarily suspend the use of non-bank and non-card channels by licensees for money transfers to China. While consumers may now have to pay more to remit funds to China, this temporary suspension will protect consumers from the uncertainty of funds being frozen by the authorities in China.

Relevant Government agencies have also been engaging the PRC government, so that the PRC government can provide information to help affected remitters understand how they can get their accounts and monies in China unfrozen by PRC law enforcement. MAS has also told the licensees to render the necessary assistance to affected consumers, also to strengthen their complaints handling processes and to review the existing arrangements with partners and intermediaries for remittances to China, in view of these complaints and the impact to their customers. MAS and SPF will continue to engage the relevant Chinese authorities and the Singapore licensees and render assistance to affected remitters.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply.

Some remittance companies have a practice of going through third-party payout agents to perform the funds transfer using personal bank accounts. The Minister of State earlier said that MAS has prohibited this practice for three months. Are there plans to extend this prohibition for longer or ban the practice outright in order to better protect consumers?

Secondly, given that most of these funds have left Singapore's jurisdiction and are held up by authorities in China, has MAS been in communication with all the complainants to inform them about the limits of Singapore's jurisdiction beyond the outreach session that was conducted in December, which was attended by just 39 individuals?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. MAS will review the temporary suspension before 31 March. As the Member had said, it was for three months. So, we are still working together with the licensees, the remittance companies as well as those affected.

On the second point, maybe I want to also set the context. Both MAS, as well as SPF, have been working with the relevant government agencies in China. But what is also useful is that, in this regard, MAS considers the remittance companies to have discharged their obligations once the funds have reached the intended recipient. So, once these funds have been successfully deposited into the bank accounts, then they have discharged their obligations. But the funds have been frozen or forfeited by the law enforcement agencies, and MAS and SPF are continually engaging the relevant government agencies in China to understand the situation and then also to work with the remittance agencies to see what we can do to assist those affected.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first is in relation to remittance companies which might potentially exempt themselves from any liabilities by making their customers sign certain waivers. Is this the case for the remittance companies that are currently involved in these cases, especially for one of them, Samlit Money Changer, which I understand from the press release, is responsible for the majority of the cases that have been surfaced, and are these exemptions basically against the current regulations?

The second supplementary question is in relation to, again, these licensed payment institutions, especially the major ones. I understand from MAS' requirements that they must comply with requirements to protect customer money and, in this case, is that protection of customer money about just ensuring that the funds reach their intended destination or that they can be accessed at their intended destinations?

Sir, we are, indeed, reviewing the complaints and have been following up with the remittance companies. In the case of Samlit, we understand that they have considered some civil action as it is a civil matter. But we are working very closely, through SPF as well as MAS, with Samlit and the other remittance licensees that the Police have received reports regarding this particular case.

If these remittance licensees – they are licensed under the PS Act, as I mentioned in my original reply – are found not to meet with the regulatory expectations, we will take action. While MAS cannot compel the remittance companies on compensation, we have told them that they should treat their customers fairly. But if they are found to be in breach, we could take regulatory and enforcement actions, including fines and reprimand. But as I mentioned in my earlier response to the supplementary question, in this case, we found that they have discharged their obligations in terms of remitting, and this is an issue that MAS, SPF and the relevant Government agencies are engaging with the PRC agencies to resolve the matter.

14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent phishing scams involving at least 237 victims since November 2023 with total losses amounting to at least $606,000 as stated in the Police advisory of 13 November 2023, what specific measures are being taken to enhance cybersecurity awareness among the public, especially regarding the use of popular messaging platforms.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this recent scam variant, WhatsApp users who were attempting to access their WhatsApp account on their computer had clicked on a fake "WhatsApp Web" phishing website. They had then scanned the QR code in the website via their WhatsApp account on their mobile device and, in doing so, they inadvertently granted the scammers access to their WhatsApp account. The scammers then used the compromised WhatsApp account to impersonate the user and reached out to the user's family and friends and convinced them to transfer monies to the scammers' bank accounts or PayNow numbers.

To combat this scam variant, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has been working with Meta to stop further abuse of compromised WhatsApp accounts as soon as they are detected. The SPF have also been working with online platforms, including Google, to introduce stronger safeguards to mitigate the risk of fraudulent takeover of online messaging accounts, such as through the preemptive detection and blocking of URLs linked to phishing websites.

The Online Criminal Harms Act which will be progressively operationalised from this quarter, will allow the Government to direct online messaging platforms to disable access to accounts suspected to be involved in scams. The Government can also require designated online service providers to introduce upstream measures to safeguard against the misuse of online accounts.

Ultimately, however, the best defence against scams is a vigilant and discerning public. To this end, the Government has been running campaigns to encourage the public to adopt good cyber practices. For instance, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) recently launched the fifth edition of the National Cybersecurity Campaign, which aims to raise awareness and drive adoption of good cyber practices.

The SPF and CSA also work with other agencies on more targeted campaigns, such as the SG Cyber Safe Students Programme, which supports schools in the conduct of cybersecurity lessons.

In addition, the SPF regularly highlights emerging scam variants and the measures that the public can take to protect themselves. Specific to the recent spike in phishing scams involving compromise of WhatsApp accounts, the SPF had issued several advisories which urged members of the public to adopt the three simple steps of "Add", "Check", "Tell".

First, "Add" security features, such as enabling two-step verification, on your WhatsApp and other online messaging accounts. Turn on your notification settings to be alerted to changes to linked devices.

Second, "Check" that you are on the official WhatsApp website. Check your settings for unauthorised linked devices and be wary of unusual requests from your contacts whose accounts may have been compromised.

Third, "Tell" your friends and family about your scam encounters and report any fraudulent activity to your bank and to the Police immediately.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for sharing what has been taken in terms of mitigating this issue. She mentioned earlier about the collaboration between the SPF and Meta in terms of combating these WhatsApp phishing scams. Apparently, many of my colleagues and I, we do use such services because of its ease. Could the Minister of State elaborate on the effectiveness of the measures that have been taken so far to reduce future compromised accounts since its implementation?

For my second supplementary question, the Minister of State mentioned earlier about the collaboration with Google in terms of enhancing pre-emptive detection and blocking of URLs linked to phishing sites. I know this is common, but are there any measurable outcomes of this initiative so far?

I thank the Member for his two questions. In my response, I will attempt to take them together.

I mentioned that the Police have been working with Meta to stop further abuse of compromised WhatsApp accounts and the Police have also been working with online platforms, including Google, to introduce safer safeguards, and I had specifically mentioned through the pre-emptive detection and blocking of URLs linked to phishing sites.

First, I would like to share that the platforms have responded with varying degrees of urgency and they had leaned to it to different extents. For example, Meta has, on some occasions, required more time to recover compromised WhatsApp accounts. We intend to work even closer with Meta and to highlight to them that we need them to do more. They need to respond more quickly to our requests, to be more effective and efficient in recovering compromised WhatsApp accounts and disabling the service if it is part of a scam. So, the Government will continue to engage these online platforms since they are key vectors for the propagation of scams.

For Google, as we all know, they run a search engine. So, we are working with them so that they can be more proactive and also more capable at detecting links which are links to phishing websites. And this is something that requires technical work on Google's end. We are highlighting these scam variants to them, so that they can take better care and look at how their search engines can be better optimised to prevent such scam variants from taking place on their platforms.

I mentioned also that the Online Criminal Harms Act will come into force in the first quarter of 2024. We have various levers under the Online Criminal Harms Act which will allow the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Government to better work with these platforms to issue Government directions against scams and to also require designated providers to detect and minimise scams and other malicious cyber activities.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.

[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) "to amend the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and to make amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Financial Advisers Act 2001, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022, the Insurance Act 1966, the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act 1970, the Payment Services Act 2019, the Securities and Futures Act 2001 and the Trust Companies Act 2005", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) on behalf of the Prime Minister; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament on or after 1 March 2024 and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Act 1992", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House reaffirms our commitment to adopt a whole-of-nation approach to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society."

[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Alex Yam. (proc text)]

Speaker, Sir, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Communications and Information, comprising People's Action Party Members of Parliament Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Hany Soh and me as the GPC Chair, is moving this Motion as Singapore comes to a point in our national trajectory towards digitalisation where we must confront challenges that could erode trust in institutions and individuals pivotal to our nation's success and cohesion.

Singapore has always been unafraid of transformations. Over a relatively short period post-Independence, we transformed from a traditional, domestically focused economy to export-led industrialisation facilitated by multinational corporations. Subsequently, Singapore strategically pivoted towards developing modern services and made substantial investments in emerging sectors like biomedical industries. Singapore also invests heavily in building up our infrastructure ahead of time so that when the wave arrives, we are ready to ride it.

This forward-thinking approach, combined with the courage to explore uncharted territories, has proven successful, bolstered by a united and high-trust population. Our gross domestic product (GDP) per capita grew from US$500 in 1965 to US$13,000 in 1990 and to US$83,000 in 2022. Going digital is a reality around the world and it is imperative for Singapore. As it is, our digital economy contributed 17.3% to our GDP in 2022, up from 13% in 2017.

As we continue to transform and embrace the opportunities presented by digital transformation and immerse ourselves in the digital realm for our daily activities, we are confronted with a growing set of challenges. The digital landscape is becoming increasingly perilous, marked by the surge in online harms such as scams, ransomware, deep fakes, misinformation and other malicious cyber activities. Compounded by rapidly evolving tactics, the situation poses a constant challenge.

Much like cockroaches, scams often operate in the dark corners of the digital realm, exploiting vulnerabilities and thriving in unsuspecting spaces. They are agile, quick to evolve and adept at camouflaging themselves, making it challenging to eradicate them entirely. Similarly, just as we believe that we figured out the latest scamming trick, new and more sophisticated threats emerge.

The rising prevalence of scams demonstrates this. Reported cases reached 31,728 in 2022, marking a 32.6% increase compared to 2021. Between January and August 2023, losses due to malware scams exceeded $20.6 million.

Notably, a global study reveals that Singapore, unfortunately, bears a significant brunt, with scam victims in the country experiencing an average loss of US$4,031 per individual. This could be a substantial loss of hard-earned savings for some Singaporeans.

In MacPherson, I have encountered several residents who were victims of scams. In late 2021, one young resident, Ms Tan, shared about how she and others lost money to fraudulent transactions on her credit card when she did not receive or provide to anyone her one-time password (OTP).

Quoting her, "Even without evidence that the consumers have received the OTP sent by the banks, that is, through a history of incoming message from the telco, banks requested customers to make payment for the fraudulent transactions without investigating whether the OTPs could have been diverted. Frustrated by their disadvantageous position in dispute against banks, consumers oftentimes bear the burden of making up to five-figure payments for these transactions."

As an ordinary citizen and consumer, it is typically difficult to retrieve information or history of SMSes from the telecommunications company (telco) and the victim usually finds themselves to and fro between the bank, telco, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Police.

In another example, I met my elderly resident, Mr Yee, who fell prey online to an investment scheme supposedly endorsed by then Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. He did not understand how credit card transactions work online and consequently was charged several thousand dollars in fraudulent credit card bills, which he could ill-afford as he only had a few hundred dollars left in his savings account. He was under tremendous stress as he was frail and worried that he will lose everything.

We managed to get the bank to waive it, given his dire circumstances, but how many such goodwill write-offs are possible?

These are just some of the notable cases that I have come across in MacPherson and I am certain my Parliamentary colleagues have many similar examples as well. Such cases are compelling motivation for us to move this Motion.

Moreover, the escalating global artificial intelligence (AI) arms race raises concerns about potential compromises on ethical considerations as powerful technology companies prioritise winning at all costs. This heightened competition may lead to a disregard for addressing social disparities, including the widening gap between the digitally know-how and the digitally know-nots, exacerbating divisions within the population.

Additionally, if institutions solely concentrate on leveraging AI or any emerging technology for enhanced productivity without concurrently investing in workforce training and re-training initiatives, ordinary citizens could grow fearful of what we will lose more than being hopeful of what we can gain from technological advancements as a society. This fear, in turn, can impede Singapore's progress.

The trustworthiness of critical infrastructures and essential services also plays a role in shaping public confidence towards the security of their personal data. With 99% of resident households in Singapore connected to the Internet, we have one of the highest internet penetration rates in the world. This is testament to Singapore's progress, but it also means that we are all the more susceptible to online threats.

DBS' repeated digital service disruptions in 2023, Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings lost to Android malware scams and personal data breaches in public healthcare – these incidents affected a significant portion of our population and in turn, affect the public's trust in the digital. These issues, if left to fester, will undermine trust.

Not being able to trust every information received, every transaction made, every voice heard and every image seen is paralysing. Trust is fundamental in a society as there will inevitably be difficult times when individuals need to be willing to temporarily sacrifice individual interests in favour of collective societal benefits. Trust is important for value-creating transactions to happen, for creative ideas to be shared and not be suppressed.

Hence, if we do not make a clear stand and actively manage these issues, we risk losing the public's trust in the digital world, thereby losing out on the benefits of convenience to citizens and benefits of productivity and innovation for our national economy.

Against this backdrop, we decided to move this Motion to reaffirm this House's commitment to adopt a whole-of-nation approach to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society.

At the onset of this speech, I have explained the context for why we have moved this Motion. I have also emphasised why trust is important and strengthening trust in a digital society must be the end goal of this Motion. Allow me to elaborate on the "safe" and "inclusive" tenets of this Motion.

On "safe", a safe online environment is crucial for building trust in a digital society because it directly influences people's confidence and willingness to engage in digital transactions and interactions.

Underlying a safe online environment are: number one, trust in digital transactions

First, we need reliable digital infrastructure so as to provide the foundation for secure, reliable and accessible digital services.

Unreliable systems, frequent outages or vulnerabilities in the infrastructure make users skeptical about the security of their transactions, hindering the growth of digital trust. Thus, the organisations across all sectors must intentionally and systematically incorporate measures and practices that prioritise and enhance trust throughout the entire digital transaction process.

Second, we need to combat scams and fraudulent activities swiftly and effectively. Scams erode trust by exploiting unsuspecting users, leading to financial losses and undermining confidence in digital transactions.

Number two, addressing cyber threats. Cybersecurity threats, such as data breaches and identity theft via malwares, contribute to fear and suspicion among users. Privacy breaches and unauthorised access to personal information can also make individuals hesitant to engage in digital activities. Hence, we must ensure that related policies and capabilities continually evolve to keep up with the rampant and fast-changing threats online.

Number three, countering online harms. Online harms, including cyberbullying and harassment, have real-life consequences on individuals' mental health and well-being, hampering their potential. Further, vulnerable groups, such as children and the elderly, are particularly susceptible to online harms. Hence, we must promote respectful and responsible behaviours and implement measures that protect vulnerable groups from exploitation, thereby fostering trust among users of all demographics.

Number four, meaningful human connections. The interconnectedness of online and physical worlds often influence real-life relationships. We should focus on creating more positive online experiences so that human connections remain meaningful even as we go digital.

And number five, digital inclusion. Ultimately, people will be keener to participate if they feel safe. Hence, we must create a safe online space that allows broad-based participation if we are to achieve a truly inclusive digital society.

In short, a safe online environment is a cornerstone of building trust in a digital society. This trust, in turn, contributes to the growth and success of the digital ecosystem, positively impacting both online and offline aspects of individuals' lives.

Moving on to "inclusive", inclusivity builds trust in a digital society as it ensures that the benefits of digitalisation are accessible to all, fostering a sense of fairness, equity and shared progress.

Key to this include: number one, access to essential services. As essential services such as Government, healthcare, finance and telco services increasingly transition to digital platforms, these must remain accessible to everyone.

Number two, digital skills empowerment and closing social gaps. We must empower our citizens with digital access and the right skills for active participation in the digital society. We must be mindful of not creating new gaps between the digitally savvy and those who are not. By doing so, individuals, including the vulnerable, can gain the confidence to navigate digital platforms, reducing the digital divide and fostering trust in their ability to engage with digital technologies.

Number three, workplace evolution for all ages. We must evolve jobs and workplaces to keep up with the fast-changing digital landscape, whilst ensuring the workforce continues to have the right skill sets, so that everyone can contribute meaningfully, regardless of age or background.

Number four, enhancing citizen participation. We must ensure that digital platforms and environments are safe, kind and respectful as I have had earlier articulated, so that citizens are not denied their voice or meaningful online participation for fear of being "cancelled" just because one holds a different view from a vocal few.

And number five, embracing diversity. We must ensure digital interfaces are inclusive by design so that citizens of all ages, languages and physical conditions can comfortably and confidently engage in the digital space.

To achieve a safe and inclusive digital society, everyone needs to play a part. Hence, our GPC for Communications and Information, together with several People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs), have set out 13 calls to action, urging a whole-of-nation approach to make the online space a safer and more inclusive one for all Singaporeans.

I will first cover five calls to action, while my fellow GPC members and PAP MPs will speak in greater depth on the rest.

First, Government to take the lead to set up information-sharing mechanism with the industry, modelled after "Stop Scams UK".

Companies, given the competitive nature, are fundamentally unwilling to cooperate and share information and best practices, which could help with timely interventions or enforcement against scams or digital threats. Ironically, collaboration on this front would have catalysed learning and improvements to their operations and business.

However, companies tend to be more willing to share data and experiences with the Government, which could then anonymise and aggregate such information. Hence, we need a stronger framework for public and private players to share information on scams, to enable faster detection and intervention.

Taking a leaf from the "Stop Scams UK" that allows industry players to share intelligence and collaborate on scam-related initiatives, our Government can and should take the lead in setting up a similar information-sharing mechanism with the industry. My hon colleague Vikram Nair will also touch on this in his speech later.

Second, Government to further integrate expertise and prioritise resources to regulate and enforce online safety. The Singapore Government has done much to combat scams and online harms, from legislation updates, introduction of codes to introducing new tools for companies' and public's use.

It is also encouraging to note the establishment of Anti-Scam Command in 2022 and co-location of major banks' staff with the Police to facilitate scam detection and reporting. But the broader efforts in combatting scams and online harms still necessitate extensive coordination across various Government agencies and departments, and private institutions, such as banks and telcos, which may have varying mandates and resource priorities.

Hence, there is scope for further integration of expertise and resource prioritisation in regulating and enforcing online safety. My hon colleague Yip Hon Weng will further touch on this and specifically on stakeholder coordination later in his speech.

Third, device manufacturers and digital service providers to strengthen safeguards against malware and ensure their offerings are safe by design and default. We have seen an increase in prevalence of scams enabled by malware on users' mobile devices. These malware threats are difficult for everyday citizens to detect. Even with public education, it will be difficult for individuals to know if their phones and devices have been compromised. Even someone who is in the tech industry will find it difficult to know.

Therefore, device manufacturers and digital service providers should be proactive in informing consumers of vulnerabilities detected and in strengthening their safeguards against malware to ensure that their offerings are safe by design and default. From another perspective, greater transparency and evident efforts in enhancing safe use will bolster customer confidence and drive sales. So, it is a win-win.

Fourth, banks and e-commerce platforms to adopt stronger authentication solutions like the Fast Identity Online (FIDO) passkeys to keep our accounts secure.

Many digital service providers continue to use authentication methods, such as traditional passwords that are vulnerable to phishing. As bad actors evolve their methods, banks and e-commerce platforms with their powerful tech capabilities have a responsibility in keeping their customers' accounts secure and should thus be adopting phishing-resistant authentication, such as FIDO passkeys.

Fifth, everyone can play their part in making Singapore's digital society safe, gracious and inclusive. As we spend more time online, the digital and physical worlds are converging and our actions in either realm can have a profound impact on the other. Ultimately, we should ask ourselves what kind of environment do we desire to see in the digital world? If we desire safety, inclusiveness, kindness and respect in the real world, we should also aspire to create the same online. Why should the digital world be any different from the real one? My hon colleague Vikram Nair will also speak on this later.

As my hon colleagues engage in deeper discussions on online harms later in their speeches, I wish to highlight the need to ensure a safe space for freedom of ideas and expression online. The Internet has the power to amplify the voices of a vocal few. If this ability becomes misguided, it risks drowning out or cancelling others who hold a different opinion or who are, simply, different. Hence, this call of action calls on every one of us to continue upholding the values of kindness and respect online and offline, to look beyond ourselves and reach out to others who may be in need of help.

Following my opening speech, the remaining speeches by our PAP MPs will focus on the remaining eight calls of actions. Allow me to briefly list them.

Holding social media services accountable for the proliferation of harmful content and malicious ads. My hon colleagues Nadia Samdin, Wan Rizal and Mariam Jaafar will be covering this.

Next, reviewing the approach to victims of scams by unauthorised transactions, with larger players doing more to prevent losses and share consequences. My hon colleagues Hany Soh and Yip Hon Weng will also be covering this.

Requiring social media services and app distribution services to step up age assurance measures to better protect young users from harmful content. My hon colleague, Nadia Samdin will be speaking on this.

Requiring social media services and app distribution services to improve timeliness in responding to user reports on harmful content on their platforms. My hon colleague Nadia Samdin will also be covering this.

Requiring essential service providers to ensure accessibility for all. My colleagues Jessica Tan, Nadia Samdin and Yip Hon Weng will be speaking on this.

Driving corporates and community organisations to promote awareness of essential digital skills and partner public sector to help close digital skill gaps. My hon colleagues Jessica Tan, Hany Soh, Sharael Taha and Mariam Jaafar will be speaking on this.

Driving stronger partnerships between public, private and individuals to deepen focus on educating our young and old on digital literacy, scams and online harms. My hon colleagues Darryl David, Wan Rizal, Sharael Taha and Yip Hon Weng will be speaking on this.

And finally, strengthening efforts in establishing future-ready workplaces for a more digitally-savvy workforce. My hon colleague Sharael Taha will also be speaking on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since Independence, Singapore has always been fearless in breaking through the status quo, and daring to transform and reform over the relatively few decades.

Our country has evolved from a traditional economy primarily focused on domestic sectors to an export-oriented industrialisation driven by multinational corporations (MNCs) and then to the development of modern service industries and investment emerging sector to maintain our competitiveness.

Singapore has also made forward-looking investments in infrastructure development, enabling it to seize opportunities as they arise.

Coupled with unity, high trust and cooperation of its people, Singapore has been able to reach where it is today.

However, the increasing opportunities brought about by a digital transformation, we have also faced increasingly severe challenges.

Cyber threats, such as scams, ransomware, deep fakes and misinformation are rapidly on the rise, significantly increasing the risks in the digital environment.

As the saying goes, the higher the level, the greater the devil.

These cyber threats are like cockroaches that will never say die.

Furthermore, the escalating global competition in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised concerns about potential ethical compromises.

Powerful technology companies may prioritise winning the competition at all costs and this potentially leads neglecting social disparities.

Additionally, the credibility of critical infrastructure and essential services can also affect the public's confidence in their personal data security.

If left unchecked, these issues will erode trust. People will not be able to trust every piece of information they receive, every transaction they conduct, every voice heard and every image seen.

This is a worrying scenario. How do we live on? How do we proceed?

Of course, there are no absolutes in the world and in the real world, nothing is perfect.

In real life, we do not refrain from leaving our homes for fear of encountering accidents.

However, trust is a key factor in building the foundation of society as difficulties are inevitable in life.

During these times, we may need to temporarily sacrifice personal interest in exchange for the collective interests of society.

Trust is also important in conducting transactions that create value and sharing ideas.

Therefore, if we do not clearly set our position and actively address these issues, we may lose trust in the public in the area of digital technology, resulting in the loss of convenience for the people, as well as productivity and innovation benefits for our economy.

In this context, I and the Members of Parliament from the PAP, have decided to propose this Motion, presenting 13 calls to action to reaffirm Parliament's commitment to build an inclusive and safe digital society through the combined efforts of the Government, businesses and the people to sustain trust.

(In English): As technology continues to develop, new methods of scams and cyber threats will also emerge. We may not be able to totally stamp out such risks or threats as they are like cockroaches. But if we can do more, if everyone is willing to take on a larger share of the responsibility, we can protect more people and reduce the harms or damage to the ordinary citizen.

In conclusion, to sustain trust and build an inclusive, safe digital society in Singapore, cannot be the responsibility of a single Government, entity or individual. As Singapore continues to advance towards a digital society, public and private stakeholders must collaborate as a whole-of-nation to manage the risks, address the challenges and help each other thrive in the digital future. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

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

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, my topic today is about restoring trust in the digital arena to tackle a crisis of confidence. On restoring trust, I will touch on scams and AI.

First, scams. I read with interest about an interview given by Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) Minister Josephine Teo to Lianhe Zaobao in December on MCI's priorities for this year. Among other things, she underscored the urgent and pressing need to restore confidence in the digital space and telecommunications.

On scams and in particular scams through phone calls, Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has revealed that out of the 1.6 billion international calls received in Singapore each year, about a quarter or 300 million were suspected to be scam calls and were blocked by telcos in the first nine months of last year.

To block 300 million calls is a staggering statistic. But I would surmise that many other scam calls would have gotten through. Our parents, residents and we ourselves are all in the pool of potential victims.

Since I spoke this House in mid-September on scam losses and doing right by bank customers, the landscape has evolved further.

On the positive side. I note that banks appear to be taking more steps to prevent scams and to stop scams in progress. I cannot over-emphasise why banks of all people need to do this. Banks are making healthy profits and have the resources and expertise to do more to protect and detect scams.

At the same time, the modus operandi of scammers has continued to evolve and leverage on victim psyche. From impersonating Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and bank officers, they now impersonate officers from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Phishing scams involving Paylah! have been effective in spoofing SMS messages typically sent by DBS Bank.

On New Year's Day this year, I, too, received the SMS about the withdrawal of $289 from my Paylah! account and a link to stop the transaction if it was unauthorised. As I was in the midst of some work then, I did not scrutinise the message carefully and clicked on the link to stop the transaction. The link then brought me to a page to enter my banking credentials, whereupon I had my Eureka moment and stopped in my tracks.

Not so fortunate were some residents who received the same SMS who then came to the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) in desperation. All in all, I have to conclude that these organised criminals must have very good consultants.

Even modes of savings we thought were very safe, like our Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies and fixed deposits, are not safe against scams and malware. This is leading to a change in thinking about digital transactions.

On this, I note that the "money lock" options now offered by the three local banks are a practical feature to ringfence funds that can only be withdrawn by a physical visit to the bank. I myself have opted for this. But from a helicopter perspective, "money lock" is actually a concession that the digital space is not that safe.

I would not like to exaggerate the situation but I would say that we are moving towards a crisis of confidence in digital banking, without stronger intervention by Government regulators.

Of course, customers need to do their part. Customers need to be wary and alert to prevent being scammed. However, we should be ever mindful not to expect too much from the public. As stated in a Straits Times Forum page letter on 22 September, it is not always possible for people to be on full alert against scams as one's level of alertness could be affected by multi-tasking, stress, fatigue or medication.

According to the IMDA's Singapore Digital Society Report last November, 78% of seniors over 60 used e-payments for online transactions but only 44% of the same group was moderately confident about identifying scams. Ninety-nine percent were worried about becoming victims of scams. These numbers show that the threat of scams is very real and that more needs to be done.

Sir, I acknowledge that the Government is working on restoring confidence in the digital space. The MAS has been working on further regulating banks and more must be done on prevention and loss sharing. I have spoken on this previously and shall not repeat myself today. I have also made a submission to the MAS on the risk-sharing framework for scam losses.

Sir, given the unequal bargaining power between banks and consumers, the MAS should be mindful that the public look to it as the bank regulator to ensure that banks behave responsibly and ethically.

Over the last few months, I have received skeptical feedback from some members of the public that the banks' interests will always be protected at the expense of the customer. I hope that the MAS will demonstrate that this is not true.

On the more general issue of digital communications and services, I acknowledge the potential of the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) to prevent scams. Among other powers, the OCHA will enable law enforcement to proactively issue orders such as access blocking directions and app removal directions to require internet service providers to protect the public from scams and other malicious cyber activity. On OCHA, it would be good to know when all the provisions will be effective.

In addition, I note the announcement by the Minister for Communications and Information on the setting up of a multi-agency group called the Task Force on Resilience and Security of Digital Infrastructure and Services – what I call the RSD task force. The work of the RSD task force is set to oversee matters of public confidence in the country's digital services.

While the set-up of the RSD task force is an important development, I note that its stated composition does not mention any representative from the MAS. Since banking is such a big part of digital infrastructure and services, should MAS not be on the task force?

Sir, my colleagues, Jamus Lim and Gerald Giam will elaborate more on scams and the sharing of responsibility later. I move on to artificial intelligence.

Twenty twenty three is generally hailed as the year when ChatGPT came into the world's consciousness and everyone started exploring its potential. The focus is now shifting to how AI tools can be deployed at scale as AI develops in sophistication. From asking AI to carry out a specific task, AI tools have gone from classification AI to generative AI where content is created, like mimicking voices of loved ones. It has further developed into interactive AI where AI tools can interact with humans to reason and arrive at watershed decisions affecting work and personal lives.

Last year, the Government published Singapore's National AI Strategy 2.

0. In it, the report acknowledged both the vast potential of AI to do both good and bad. The bad aspects included how AI could amplify harms such as enabling scams using deepfakes, spreading this information and others.

According to CNA, the prevalence of deepfake videos in Singapore jumped 500% in 2023 compared to the previous year. We should be acutely aware of AI's pitfalls and the need for AI regulation to ensure that Singaporeans remain safe online.

Sir, I believe the Government is closely watching for the potential pitfalls of AI. It has set up the AI Verify Foundation, which published a discussion paper last year entitled, "Generative AI: Implications for Trust and Governance". The paper was stated to be targeted at senior leaders in Government and business, advocating for more discourse and collaboration on building an ecosystem for the trusted and responsible adoption of generative AI. Among the emergent risks of generative AI listed by the paper were the making of mistakes, copyright infringements and the spreading of toxicity and cyber threats. Apart from these emergent risks, the fact that AI will lead to drop losses and disinformation alone will erode public trust in the digital arena.

Across the world, the fundamental question of whether human beings really want to go further with AI is being asked. There is growing concern about creating more powerful AI tools that may replace the human function and even control human interactions. The concern comes from those in the AI industry as well.

For instance, there is a non-profit organisation based in the United States (US) called the Future of Life Institute. Its multidisciplinary international team engages in policy work aimed at improving AI governance. In March this year, the institute launched a petition calling for a pause in AI development beyond GPT-4. The petition gathered more than 33,000 signatures, including those of CEOs of AI companies.

Some of the big questions identified for reflection include the following questions: (a) whether we should let machines flood our information channels with possible propaganda and untruth; (b) whether we should automate away all jobs including, the fulfilling ones; and (c) whether we should develop non-human minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart and replace us.

Other prominent thinkers have cautioned that reliance on AI tools to process information and to think may result in the potential loss of human reasoning and analytical ability. Speaking for myself, I must say that the thought of major decision-making in the world being outsourced to AI tools is simply unacceptable.

Moving forward, the need to harness AI and yet ensure humans are in charge will be the big challenge. Technology should be our servants and not our masters. We should take time to reflect on what is happening and not let technology run away unbridled with us in toll. To this end, having effective regulation for AI will require the Government to invest in constant capacity building.

Sir, let me conclude. My speech today was on restoring trust in the digital arena. I have highlighted that online scams and the risk of AI have put trust under a microscope. The Motion today posits that a whole-of-nation approach should be taken to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society. I am able to support the Motion as I agree that everyone has a role to play.

Nevertheless, for the reasons I have stated, my view is that it is incumbent upon the Government and businesses to spearhead this effort.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I had not originally intended to intervene in this debate and speak, but a number of Clementi residents had been sharing about the timeliness of this Motion and I feel I should just share a couple of perspectives.

I will speak today about the consumer protection angle to scams and secondly, more broadly, on the landscape in the age of AI and Singapore's survivability.

Firstly, on the issue of scams. There is, I would say, agreement on all sides of the House that it is a serious issue, especially in the era of digital banking, where senior citizens who grew up in a world of face-to-face counter transactions now can have their bank accounts and life savings depleted at the click of the device by a scammer far away, outside of Singapore.

This is a serious issue, especially in societies such as Singapore, where we progressed rapidly from third world to first and seniors growing up in the pre-digital era today exist in a world of digital access and digital technology. That is the first point about consumer protection.

Even as Members on both sides of the House call for additional measures to scrutinise how banks treat their customers, I would like to once again call upon the MAS and the relevant authorities, to call upon and make the point I have raised previously in this House on multiple occasions, which is that there needs to be a consumer protection approach to scams involving banking customers who get scammed out of their savings online.

In recent times, there have been efforts by the MAS – initially called the risk sharing framework or risk allocation framework, depending on how commentators look at it. But the key point has to be this: the norms that we approach consumer safety in banking, the approach to consumer safety for banking should not be too different from consumer safety in other more tangible areas of the marketplace.

As I shared to the Minister of State from MAS not too long ago, if today, a company had a consumer product and if somebody could be tricked by a stranger into configuring that product wrongly so that there was either bodily harm or damage to property resulting in the loss of someone's entire life savings, we know what the consumer protection approach would be.

We see that with vehicles, where if there is a design flow in the vehicle that predisposes to human error or catastrophic outcomes of human error, that vehicle has to recall, that manufacturer is dealt with in a very serious way.

Yesterday, in a written question to the Minister for Communications and Information on operating systems, what was quite notable was that a certain operating system accounted for virtually all of the online banking scams made known to the Police, while a certain different operating system did not figure very much in the figures reported in that Parliamentary written answer. So, again, we see quite a different situation between these consumer products.

Once again, I call upon this Government to take a consumer protection focus and make sure that manufacturers as well as service providers, including financial institutions, are held accountable in a way that is not too different from other sectors of society.

If your family owns a car and there is a design issue leading to bodily harm or loss of your life savings, you know what the manufacturer must do. If there is a home appliance in your kitchen and someone can trick you into pressing the wrong button so that someone is injured and loses their life savings along the way, you know what the approach will be when it comes to that home appliance.

I call upon this Government, MAS and the other agencies to take a hard look at the financial institutions and banks and ask: are the banks and telcos and technology firms shouldering enough responsibility in the digital world that tangible goods providers shoulder in the physical world? So, that is the first part of my speech, Mr Speaker.

The second part of my speech will be on the age of AI and what Singapore needs to do to adapt. I spoke on this last year, during the debate on the President's Address. Early last year, I spoke on the age of AI and it was a humbling moment, because after the speech was delivered and it got a little bit of viral traction online, I think, just a little bit over 100,000 people around the world watched it – not that many. But we started getting emails, messages, from people around the world. Someone from the USA wrote to me, someone from Africa wrote in as well and it touched a chord. But this is not about that speech. It is about what Singapore represents to the world. When people see our Parliamentarians, whether our Ministers, office holders, whether our backbenchers of various persuasions, looking to the future about what the world will be like, people look at what Singapore is thinking about and they want us to try and find the way forward as well.

And so, on the issue of AI and the issue of deepfakes, I have a few suggestions as well for the Government to consider. Some I have put forward before in Parliamentary Questions and in my speeches, but let me just reiterate again.

The issue of deepfakes is going to be a serious matter for democracies around the world – because if we can no longer discern easily what is real and not real, you cannot even have a functioning democracy. No government, regardless of which political party they come from, will be able to govern in any country without that fundamental basis for deliberative, democratic discussion.

That means, as a society, we need to deal with this pre-emptively. The Prime Minister not too long ago, in a Facebook post, talked about how there was a deepfake of him trying to sell certain investment products, a fake video. But that is just deepfake 1.

0. Project that forward three, five years, 10 years, with more computing power, you can imagine how authentic those deepfakes are going to be. Therefore, as a society and as a government, we must not shy away from moving pre-emptively to address the issue of deepfakes.

I have called upon this Government to look at ways of electronically watermarking content, so called "proof of human", whether it is proof of human when someone transacts with an AI bot, with a tech firm online that may be giving answers by AI, but the broader point is that we need ways to confirm that the content is real and is a human.

We also need to continue moving upstream, a point which I made to the Education Minister yesterday in Question Time. From young, we will have to continue training and teaching and bringing up our young Singaporeans, our children and grandchildren, to be even more aware of deepfakes and how subtle they can be.

In short, as a young Clementi friend not too long ago, this young Clementi friend was sharing about his worry about deepfakes, saying, "You know, look, some of these look a bit sus", suspicious. But the whole point is, the first step is to have that healthy scepticism to sense when something might be a bit "sus". To sense, while at the same time not losing faith in society being able to move forward.

It is of course, a whole-of-Government effort, there needs to be many ways to look at it, education, regulation, social norms, making sure tech firms are held accountable as well. But we need to move on this very quickly because by the time the genie is completely out of the bottle, the horse has bolted, it is much harder to rebuild these norms and reconstruct the democratic process in our society.

So, in summary, Mr Speaker, just two key points, but fundamentally about seeing through the eyes of our people.

The first, seeing through the eyes of our consumers and making sure that firms in the digital space and in the financial sector, retail banking services, they treat consumer protection the same way online as we would treat consumer protection for an offline tangible product in the home, around the home.

Secondly, likewise seeing through the eyes of our people in a world where we have to cope with deepfakes, training, educating our people to see better, so that we can safeguard this very precious idea that is Singapore, in a world that is continually being disrupted by AI.

One last point I wanted to make is that we need to double down our investments in AI capability in our Government and in our industry as well. There has been mention of the AI roadmap version 2.0, but sometimes let us also ask ourselves, can we have even higher levels of ambition?

From public domain information, if I recall correctly, not too long ago, I think less than a decade ago, Microsoft pumped $1 billion investment into OpenAI. It seemed like a big amount then, but in hindsight, it seems like it was a quite a good deal at the time, given what OpenAI grew into. This also links to a point I made a few years back during a Budget debate. Sometimes when we invest ahead of the market, invest in certain technological capabilities which may see tenuous today, but which could have high yields tomorrow, it means that we are able to get those dividends later on.

Many of the big tech firms today, whether Apple, Google, Meta, back then known as Facebook, would not have seemed sure bet investments in their very early years. But those who were willing to make those bets yielded substantial dividends and today our tech powerhouses.

So, let us think about that as we move into the next phase of AI, the next phase of tech in the digital world for Singapore. What investments can we bet on that may seem tenuous today but which could put Singapore in a position to be a world power of such capabilities in years ahead.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak. I stand in support of the Motion by Ms Tin Pei Ling. [Applause.]

Ms Jessica Tan.

Mr Speaker, our GPC for Communications and Information is advocating for commitment of all stakeholders to build an inclusive and safe digital society as the pace of technological advancements has changed how we live, work and play. These changes have enabled ease and speed of access, ability to connect or interact, bringing benefits as well as new capabilities and opportunities.

As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, digital connectivity enabled people to continue to access timely information, services and to communicate. Businesses and work could continue – albeit virtually.

Increasingly, access to many services for living are digital. From everyday tasks such as booking a taxi or private hire car, ordering food or making a restaurant reservation, making payments, getting information or directions, to accessing and transacting Government services and banking transactions. Even to get discounts requires you to scan a QR code or go online. For some organisations, job applications and interviews are done online. The latest news is availably digitally as soon as it happens or even as it happens.

If an individual is digitally excluded, he or she will not get timely information, services and its benefits. It is therefore important to ensure that no one is left behind as we become increasingly digital.

While it is encouraging to see in the Singapore Digital Society (SGDS) Report 2023 that 99% of households in Singapore have Internet access and there is a higher adoption of digital technology and skills even amongst seniors. However, a study by IMDA showed that while Singaporeans are more willing to try new technologies, only 55% of those aged 18 and above and 24% of seniors know how to use devices and applications with emerging technologies such as voice recognition, virtual or augmented realities.

Singapore takes a digital first but not digital-only approach as a central organising principle to harness the innovation potential and productivity but still ensuring that those who may not be comfortable with using digital technologies not be excluded from essential services.

But while we continue to provide non-digital options, we must work to encourage and enable as many as possible to participate digitally. If we do not, what it will mean in a digital first but not digital only society is that those who do not use digital will miss out on the ease, timeliness and benefits that digital can offer.

Let us just take a simple example of the collection of the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers to illustrate the point. You can get the physical CDC vouchers by going to a community club (CC). To do so, you will be required to make time to go to the CC when it is open. If you are lucky, there is no queue and you do not have to wait in line to get you CDC vouchers at the CC before you can use them. If instead you "collect" your CDC vouchers online using your Singpass, it would take you a minute or even less and you can proceed to use your CDC vouchers.

The point applies to many other transactions that we do like banking. You can go to the bank to get your transactions done which requires travel and time. It also has to be done during the opening hours of the bank. With online banking, you can do so anytime, from wherever you are.

This now brings me to the critical point of digital safety and resilience which impacts trust and adoption. You heard from all the previous speakers about the concerns, the risks, the dangers. But I would like to just make a few points on this.

Digital inclusion is more than access. It must be accompanied with the ability to use digital technologies effectively and safely and trust in the security and resilience of the digital environment and the platform in order for someone to really benefit from it. This includes important skills to stay safe online such as how to interact safely, how to protect your personal privacy online and how to effectively search for and discern information.

The increasing use of new technologies does have its risks and safeguards against cyber risks, scams and misinformation is vital to increase building confidence and trust.

With the increasing use of sophisticated technologies and tools by scammers, the number of persons affected by and amounts lost to scams is significant. Of particular concern are unauthorised transactions.

While there are measures including legislation that have been introduced to safeguard the online space from harmful content and Government agencies continue to implement strategies with critical services and digital platform providers to prevent, detect and recover monies lost to scammers, more still needs to be done to secure digital transactions and online transactions and protect vulnerable users.

When we think of vulnerable users, we tend to think of seniors and those less digitally savvy. Sadly, I have had both seniors who lost their life savings to scams as well as younger individuals who had been scammed, approach me for assistance.

Recently, a young resident in her 20s came to see me for help as she had worked hard to save her money, and had spent a few years building up her savings, but as a result of an online transaction she made, unfortunately she lost all her savings. To add to it, she had her bank account details and credit card credentials stolen which resulted in unauthorised credit card payments as well.

Basically, what it means is that with the new technologies and sophisticated tools, user digital literacy will not be sufficient to safeguard against digital risks. We must put more demands on Government, on platform players, telcos and device manufacturers to do more to improve the standards of security to enhance online safety of users on their platforms and for their services.

But as we talk about the dangers and risks, there are also opportunities. As we put more demands on all the larger players, and the key players and stakeholders, I will say that there is also an opportunity for platform and service players in Singapore. Singapore is an advanced market with high levels of connectivity, as I have shared earlier, and also high levels of residents owning smartphones. The number of seniors owning smartphones has increased to 89%, as per the report I cited earlier. This provides platform and service players an opportunity to use Singapore as a base for innovation to apply and showcase higher standards of security. I do urge all players to do this, because as the Government pushes the measures, if all players come together, it will be a great opportunity for us to try new things, as Dr Tan Wu Meng had said, to really make Singapore that showcase to bring trust and confidence back in the digital space.

As I have mentioned, it is key to building trust and confidence for digital adoption. I just want to make another point that, the Singapore Digital Society (SGDS) Report 2023 did say that 55% of Singaporeans aged 15 and above are willing to accept the risks that come with the use of technology and only 33% amongst those aged 60 and older. So, people are aware of the risks. But what we now need to do is to manage that.

So, let me now also talk about the role of users and public education. Industry players and Government play a big role to strengthen digital safety and security and digital literacy of persons using these applications and online systems. Public education and efforts to equip people with digital literacy, especially for certain segments like seniors and vulnerable segments, have been effective and have helped adoption. But more needs to be done and more efforts need to be continual because the digital space does not stay static.

But, I do want to make a point about each of us and the role that we have to play. We do need to remind ourselves that what we do to protect ourselves in our physical interactions should also be practised digitally. Take, for example, in our physical lives, before we let someone enter our homes, we would check on who they are and we would not let anyone suspicious or someone we do not know into our homes. We would not give our NRIC details, bank account information or ATM card to anyone we do not know or trust. These same principles and practices must be applied when we are online and using our digital devices and applications. Otherwise, no matter what measures and legislation are in place to improve digital safety and security, they would not be able to protect us in our digital transactions. So, we all have to do our part.

Let me now touch on a few other points.

While digital literacy allows us to transact digitally, one of the areas when people do hit issues with transaction is the ability to get help to resolve these issues can, sometimes, be quite challenging, given how access to support is currently structured. Unless you are a victim of fraud or have been scammed, most helpline numbers provided take quite a bit of navigation. Prioritising support for those who have been scammed is necessary. However, users of digital services when faced with issues during their transaction, do also need support to resolve their transaction issues.

I do agree that it is challenging to resource support given manpower constraints, cost and capacity. But as commercial businesses and Government services become more digital-first, we need to rethink the model of support and find more effective ways to provide timely access to support for users when they encounter issues with their digital transactions. This will reassure and build digital trust and confidence. Especially when transactions involve monies, it can cause anxiety for users, young or old.

I do want to touch on another point about digital inclusion and that is about the ability to participate in opportunities. New areas of technologies, including AI, have the potential to enable new capabilities, cause disruptions, of course, but create new ways of doing things and generating new opportunities.

Singapore continues to have ambitious plans to leverage new technologies to grow and bring benefits to our people and businesses. An example is Singapore's second National AI Strategy (NAIS 2.0), which was recently launched last December by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. It outlines both the opportunities and risks of AI. It outlines also our ambition and commitment to building a trusted and responsible AI ecosystem, driving innovation and growth through AI and empowering our people and businesses to understand and engage with AI. But it will require new governance models as well.

So, my point is, to realise these ambitious plans, we will need people with skillsets in new areas of technology and cybersecurity. Why? It is to build thoughtful design and solutions to really benefit from these new technologies. What it also means is good jobs for Singaporeans. But in order to take advantage of these opportunities will require new skills. Organisations must make investments to support their employees in building new skillsets, educational institutions must prepare our students and those in the workforce for these opportunities, individuals of all ages and career stages must be open to learning and taking on new opportunities. There must be investments by the Government and the private sector to build deep skills.

New technologies will allow for new ways of doing things and this involves more than technologies. We will need new thinking and ideas. And this brings me to a point about a diverse workforce. A diverse workforce will enable organisations to leverage different perspectives, skills and experiences because you need that to develop new ideas to grow and thrive in a digital society. This is possible. On that note, I do want to make a point to employers and organisations that we must tap on the vast pool of wealth and experience of senior workers and bring that into that diverse workforce to enable us to find new ways, both young and old, to create new ways of doing things with technology.

Let me now conclude. While we discuss building an inclusive and safe digital society, core to our Motion is our People. It is not about being a digitally advanced society with the best infrastructure, policies and skills or level of excellence and technology adoption. All these are necessary, but the purpose of an inclusive and safe digital society is to ensure that everyone can actively participate and benefit to make their lives better and that no one is left behind. But in order to achieve this, it will take all of us to do our part to enable an inclusive, trusted and safe digital society.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, others in this House, in particular, my hon friend Ms Sylvia Lim, have previously articulated reasons as to why the MAS' Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) is inadequate and unjust.

While I support the Motion as it stands, I will elaborate in my speech today on why, as currently conceived, it remains fundamentally unfair in stark contrast to its stated aim of equitable sharing.

The official press release describing the framework states that, and I quote, "All parties have responsibilities to be vigilant and to take precautions against scams." Financial institutions need to implement robust controls to safeguard customer accounts and to detect and clamp down on suspicious transactions. Customers need to take precautions to not frivolously release their banking credentials and to practise cyber hygiene. Losses would then be assigned according to how far each party falls short of these responsibilities.

All this sounds reasonable on its face. But, in practice, fraud is almost always perpetrated on the weaker link in the chain, in this case, the vulnerable consumer, more often than not, than on the relatively better-equipped and technologically sophisticated bank or telecoms company. Hence, the equitable sharing framework becomes less about fairly distributing losses, but about distributing responsibilities. Losses, when they occur, would appear overwhelmingly borne by the consumer. Put another way, we should only expect the framework to yield equitable outcomes if the fair assignment of responsibilities were all that mattered.

Anyone who has bargained over the price of fish or vegetables at the market or negotiated a salary or a raise with an employer or taken part in discussions over the distribution of chores or workload would know full well how power differentials matter massively and how the altar, how the pie ends up being split.

This is not mere speculation. A large literature on the theory of bargaining shows that those in possession of power, tend to do better in negotiations. In cases where the bargaining is explicitly antagonistic, canonical models suggest that those who are more patient and are able to make the first move possess an advantage.

Even when we allow for the possibility that players see the benefits of cooperation and embed this in their negotiations, the outcome remains heavily conditioned by each party's relative bargaining power. Moreover, those who are better able to walk away tend to do better.

If we look carefully at the two parties involved in negotiating a settlement over fraudulent claims, it is clear who has the greater power, patience and ability to hold firm to their offer, and that is the bank.

Financial institutions are not only larger. If they can simply demonstrate that they have not erred in effecting a fraudulent transfer, they can currently credibly insist on refusing any share of the loss altogether. And write-offs, when they do occur, are typically only a small fraction of the institution's balance sheet.

In stark contrast, scams are often ruinous for the depositor. At the extreme, they could constitute either an individual's entire life savings, or worse, it could saddle an unwitting "mule" with onerous debt. What is the split then that best reflects distributive justice?

While there are variations, many have concluded that a 50/50 split or something close to it, is the only just solution to most bargaining situations. Importantly, the notion of a 50/50 split should not be seen as one where each party takes an equal nominal share. Rather, the notion of an equal split suggests that each is made to bear a burden that is commensurate with what they are able to afford.

This is why the Government needs to step in to empower depositors with a more robust set of laws that offer financial protection to consumers. At the simplest level, these could be laws that limit liability on fraudulent transactions to a pre-specified amount.

I had previously raised this point in a speech on the Financial Services and Markets Bill delivered last year. Here, I will elaborate why doing so will not only help redress the power imbalance between customers and banks, but also why it is fundamentally fair.

Mr Speaker, the Government first shared with this House that it was working on a loss-sharing framework early in 2022. It explained closer to the end of that year that it was taking longer than expected and the release was further postponed in the middle of last year. MAS finally published a joint consultation paper in October, but it was extremely circumscribed to deal only with phishing scams.

Perhaps more importantly, what the framework proposes is to adopt a "waterfall approach", where financial institutions and telecom operators will only bear the full losses when they "fail to discharge their respective prescribed duties" and will not require payouts to be made to consumers if they are deemed to have done so.

Alas, this approach will absolve financial institutions and communications companies from the costs of business, so long as they have done their part. While this does not close the door to other resolution mechanisms, such as the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), it remains too cavalier in apportioning liability in the first instance. SRF is a split based on effort, not outcomes. Put another way, should there be a realised loss, as long as the financial institution or telecom operator can demonstrate that they have satisfied a certain set of obligations – which, to be honest, is not even exhaustive – their loss share will not be half. It would not be a third or even a quarter. It could well be zero. This cannot be fair.

Think of it this way. Imagine that there are two cars driving side-by-side on the road. It is the responsibility of both drivers not to drive beyond the speed limit and to stay in their lanes. Should one car brake suddenly and it is ahead, the following car should always maintain a safe distance. But what if the cars were side-by-side and a child were to run out in front of one of them? If one of them were to swerve to avoid an accident and the other fails to yield, it is hard to say that only one of the cars should bear responsibility for the crash.

Financial fraud, while preventable to a certain extent with sound system design and due diligence, is almost certainly likely to occur, regardless of the best efforts of either party. Much like the analogy that I just shared, there will seldom be clear-cut pinning of blame on one party versus another. If so, it is only fair that both sides bear some of the costs of the loss.

Such a legislative may, of course, seem foolhardy. The standard line trod out by critics is that protecting customers from the consequences of scams must mean that they are less likely to take the necessary precautions to safeguard against falling for them. This is what is often referred to as moral hazard – since one side is protected, one takes less care.

But while I am sympathetic to the argument in principle, a crude application of this theory is problematic. For starters, this kind of argument places too little faith in the agency of Singaporeans. After all, why would anyone wish to fall victim to a scam?

Even if they bore only limited consequences, most of us would take active steps to counteract crime, even when we do not receive a clear pay-off. Furthermore, just as we co-payments in most insurance plans, so long as savers are required to absorb at least some reasonable amount of loss – say, an upper limit of $100 or $500 – then it is hard to claim that the consumer incentives are not well-aligned with combating fraud.

We should not think that only a catastrophic loss would be sufficient for individuals to practise the necessary amount of cyber hygiene. Nobody would rather lose $100 to a scammer, rather than none, if they can avoid it.

Of course, this opens up the possibility that unscrupulous scammers may use this very notion of victim protection to defraud banks directly. Yet, this is true for any form of insurance fraud and there are well-established mechanisms for identifying and clamping down on such abuse, which would emerge when losses are more equally apportioned to both sides.

That naturally brings me to the sort of indirect long-run benefits to having a system where both sides are made to bear some of the losses. Such a law would also likely lead to a sequence of favourable developments in the financial ecosystem that could render it more robust.

Financial institutions would take more care to police phishing and fraud. Since they can no longer pass on most of the costs of losses to consumers, there would also be more pressing incentive to chase down transfers made to suspicious counterparties and they would no longer condone unauthorised purchases made with ill-gotten money.

Fraud detection and prevention tools have been around for a long time. But the widespread rollout of generative artificial intelligence has made the rapid deployment of the latest algorithms both less costly and simultaneously more sophisticated. Merchants and banks, in turn, would apply more caution as they seek to implement their own safeguards lest they lose the right to accept payments or transfers electronically. Insurance schemes to cover fraud would likely emerge. And since all financial institutions would be involved by law, the market would deepen rapidly keeping such insurance costs sufficiently low.

Such developments could well be the unintended but welcome side effect of making our system recognise a truly equitable distribution of losses.

The Government seems to be aware of the potential benefits of insurance mechanisms of this nature. In his initial discussion of CPF-related fraud, Minister Tan See Leng suggested an openness through such mechanisms. However, this was walked back the very next day with the Ministry stating that it had and I quote, "no intention" to consider insurance schemes.

While I appreciate that pricing could ultimately be prohibitive, one is left to wonder why the notion of insurance does not, at the very least, warrant a deeper and further study. After all, even the limited liability insurance scheme – one that caps the maximum amount of fraud-related payout – would still be preferable to a system that is entirely bereft of such protection.

Sir, I have focused most of my speech on what can be done on the supply side. I will close with a discussion on why demand side measures, while useful at the margin, are ultimately inadequate.

Banks have already independently implemented certain features to introduce additional frictions into online transactions in collaboration with MAS and the Association of Banks Singapore (ABS). One is to implement a cooling-off period after a charge is made to the maximum daily transfer limit or other key account features. Another is to remove clickable links in emails or SMSes.

But it is noteworthy that while these were first rolled out in January 2022 and if the continued proliferation of scams over the past two years are any guide, these measures alone remain insufficient to stem the tide of financial fraud.

Another step banks can consider: introduce their own hurdles. For example, one could require certain classes of account holders, such as the elderly or less tech-savvy to opt into a scheme where they designate a separate individual, such as a trusted associate or a family member as a second key who will need to provide approval for transactions that are anomalous. But this will almost certainly bring problems of conflict and control of their own, such as when even well-meaning family members impose restrictions on others' use of their own funds.

Similarly, cooling-off periods only work to the extent that victims are even aware or accept that they have been scammed. There are many instances of careful instructions by scammers building on the trust, naivety or simply insecurity of the victims that lead them to consciously circumvent such circuit breakers.

Unless we think that we surely will never fall victim to such schemes, recall that many fraudsters are extremely skilled confidence artists and even professionals may succumb, as a study by the Police Psychological Services Division conducted in 2018 has shown.

Mr Speaker, the loss sharing framework proposed by the Government is a step forward in helping establish liability on financial fraud. But for the reasons I have offered, I do not believe that it fulfils its fundamental promise of being fair. This has led to a steady erosion of trust in digital transactions, one that if not addressed expeditiously, could result in the crisis of confidence over online payments and digital finance.

To rebuild trust, regulators should require actual loss absorption by financial institutions and communications companies with an upper limit to consumer liability of $100 or $500 when losses are perhaps inevitably and unfortunately realised. This will not only be fair but help evolve the system in the long run to a more robust one.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Sir, I rise in support of the Motion and would like to declare my interest as a board member of SG Her Empowerment, a non-profit platform that champions gender equity to empower individuals from all segments of Singapore and my speech will cite incidents of sexual crimes.

Sir, I speak on behalf of the victims and the survivors.

About five years ago, SG Nasi Lemak Telegram group was first created. Thousands of non-consensual sexually explicit photos and videos of women and schoolgirls were distributed to more than 44,000 members.

About half a year ago, a dating show created by a TitTok content creator garnered criticism for its lack of sensitivity in the way it featured and seemed to exploit individuals with special needs.

About a month ago, a 65-year-old Singaporean retiree lost her life savings in 15 days. For one of my resident's grandmother, it was lost over 115 transactions and six days. This was the result of an online scam.

In the last week, articles report that the UK police are investigating a reported case of alleged gang rape of a teenager's virtual avatar in the metaverse.

These are but some examples. For many, the digital world offers validation, connection and convenience. Unfortunately, it can also lead to cyber abuse, trolling and painful scams that is often debilitating, in particular, for vulnerable individuals.

Society is changing more rapidly than ever, with new technologies affecting every aspect of life, from emails after work hours to WhatsApp group chats for classes and sharing locations at the tap of the screen. COVID-19 also pushed much of our world online, from grocery shopping to Zoom meetings.

But access to these technologies and competence to use them is not enough to deal with the dangers. We have to go beyond this, towards digital well-being and digital citizenship for every individual to feel included and empowered to safely participate in the online sphere.

The Government has been taking great steps to this end, in particular, towards digital access and taking a stand against technology-facilitated sexual violence. For example, MCI's Digital for Life Fund funds inclusion projects that empower all Singaporeans to embrace digitalisation.

In July 2023, IMDA's Code of Practice online safety came into effect, requiring designated social media services to enhance online safety in Singapore and curb the spread of sexual content, violent content, suicide and self-harm content on their platforms.

However, it will take the whole-of-society to create a safer online space; and today I will speak on content, communication and cyber habits, three Cs.

Every day, an approximate 34 million videos are posted to TikTok and 15 million Telegrams are sent, the digital kind. Our modern society craves content and loves to create it. I would like to highlight three consequences – other than the increasing occurrence that some friends may go hungry while the phone camera eats first, to post Instagram stories because if you did not post it, did it really happen?

First, algorithms open up opportunities for creators to reach large audiences. But the curation of perfect content may be harmful to self-esteem. Studies have shown that social media use appear to play a role in perpetuating negative body concepts and exacerbate eating disorders. Young girls and boys are pushed videos and tips on unrealistic body expectations and radical diets.

This idea of a filtered life also creates discontent and intensifies social comparisons. Pressure to create videos which draw quick likes also can lead to unverified or sensationalised content where truth is sacrificed for popularity.

Second, some users, including impressionable miners create suggestive content for validation, at times egged on by peers or malicious actors. This is different from adult content creators who are in control of their actions and aware of consequences.

I call on platforms and apps to step up age-assurance measures to better protect young users from harmful content and have not placed better verification and restriction measures.

Of course, it is not enough in an empowered digital society to simply elect to ban our youths from using their devices or confiscate them. We must also create a safe environment for them to turn to during their curiosity and to receive trusted and effective support in unfortunate circumstances.

Third, I have spoken about the number of social media channels selling, encouraging and circulating non-consensual and illegally obtained sexually explicit materials. A few months ago, we were shaken by the disturbing news of seven men meeting on an online forum as early as in 2010, before discussing their wife-sharing fantasies and turning their plans into action, even live streaming these acts.

What steps can we take to prevent such heinous acts by perpetrators and protect women and girls who are also our mothers or sisters and our friends? How can we hold online forums and social media services accountable? The longer they permit such harmful content to circulate and improve timeliness in responding to user reports where servers are located overseas, how can we prevent such incidents from happening again?

Most importantly, good online habits start from a compassionate and safe offline world built on respect. Incidents of sexual online harms often involve elements of power and humiliation. In order to gain control over their victims, perpetrators of sexual violence tend to resort to practices, such as manipulation and coercion.

Offenders may not necessarily find the act gratifying in itself, but in the meaning attributed to power for men and this may override the goals of such acts.

To this end the kind of content we create to regulate and amplify about women is key. How can we promote gender equity messages based on merit and move beyond stereotyping objectification and hyper-sexualisation?

Beyond content, the online space is also a place for us to converse with each other. But in a world of strangers who comment more than communicate and hold different and divergent views, how do we create a respectful space?

Often times, regretfully, we see comments expressing racist or rude remarks. At times, these are disguised as fairy comments or posted by unnamed troll accounts whose creators would perhaps not make such comments to a person's face in real life, but feel empowered hiding behind the veil online.

While their grievances may be authentic, we must do better in digital education such that our people do not lose basic compassion or tolerance for each other and understand the consequences of their words posted in a rage.

How do we reach beyond algorithms and filter bubbles which seem to confirm our existing beliefs and biases without exception, while hiding content that challenges our thinking? Such bubbles lead to a polarised and fragmented society where even real-life friends are unable to engage with ideas or opposing frequencies that are different from their own.

On cyber habits and how we integrate social media in our day-to-day lives, there are two ends of the spectrum. First, the fear of technology which prevents participation such as seniors would deliberately avoid stalls that exclusively use e-payments; and on the other hand, individuals who may get addicted to social media and excessively consume content or participate in online gambling.

How can we better equip individuals of all ages and literacy levels with positive cyber habits? Sir, the community plays a part. Community-based digital interventions and innovations are key ways through which we as a people can take ownership and do something about these issues. For example, NUGU, a group-based application has been used to improve self-regulated smartphone usage and has been proven effective. In my constituency, Cheng San-Seletar, a group of youths known as the Cheng San Chapalang Club held one-on-one digital workshops in various languages and dialects for seniors to boost their literacy. Non-profits, such as Cyber Youth Singapore, play an important part too. The Surf Safe Initiative was launched in 2022 to cultivate safer cyber habits among secondary students and to date has reached 33,944 of them.

Beyond programmes, ultimately, it comes down to the fostering of a positive and trusting Internet culture. This is particularly important towards ensuring that every individual can participate fully, including our friends with special needs. Studies have shown that the online life may provide a sense of safety, for example, for individuals who autism. In the digital space, they have increased control over their communication and engagement styles, fostering a greater sense of tranquility during these interactions. What more can the Government do to equip and empower persons with special needs towards digital participation and independent living?

Technology can be a great leveller, where you find support in online communities who have the same rare disease as you or date online or visit places in virtual reality that you may never get the chance to see in real life or be the hero in a team game. But this can only happen if persons with special needs can tap on assistive technology and learn digital skills in a way that is tailored to their understanding of the world.

How many individuals has the Digital Enablement Programme served since its inception? Are there plans to further scaffold our digital structure, for example, by creating specialised websites to cultivate accessible and inclusive online platforms?

Of course, societal efforts must be bolstered by rigorous policies and law enforcement. As the velocity of technological advancement increases, it can be hard for regulators to keep pace and in the grey zone, at times, the de facto rules are set by dominant actors who may not have the public's interest at heart.

From data privacy, content regulation, online harms and AI, jurisdictions from the European Union (EU) to the US to Australia have also been developing new regulations. However, this comes with its own complications. The digital space does not always stop at physical borders and the fragmentation of digital governance and regulations may see a confusing patchwork of laws where malicious individuals exploit and play in the gaps, for examples, scammers who hide behind confusing IP addresses.

At the end of the day, it is the innocent victims who suffer. Beyond effective investigation, how can we better provide emotional and mental support to victims of online scams who may feel a deep sense of loss and injustice?

Enforcement is also key and social media platforms play a major role. In July 2023, Google launched the YouTube Priority Flagger programme, which empowers community partners by training them to assess content that violates YouTube community guidelines. These priority flaggers include organisations such as Touch and SG Her Empowerment, who are able to flag content directly to Google, allowing problematic content to be prioritised for review.

By having the community play a bigger role in reviewing content and building trust and safety, this leads to a more resilient Internet culture. Sir, briefly, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In today's world, we are constantly surrounded by technology. Technology helps us but it can also hurt us. It is important that our digital community builds trust in each other, regardless of age and background, by:

Understanding how the algorithm works and exercising care to avoid becoming so immersed in the algorithm until we no longer consider other views. We may also become entangled in narrow-minded views because of what is being shown to us, and such content can potentially create tension in society. Therefore, it is important for us to cultivate healthy online habits, so that we can benefit from the use of technology in our day-to-day lives.

Second, communicate judiciously, even when we are behind a screen. While technology has given many people a chance to speak out about issues that they believe in, it has also become a platform for online harms. According to a study conducted by SG Her Empowerment (SHE), three in five Singaporeans have experienced online harms, or know someone who experienced it. The ability to conceal identities behind a screen has given confidence to many "keyboard warriors", thus emboldening them to make comments online in a way that they do not dare to say or do to someone directly. Many such cases have been reported, one of which involved a lewd survey on local female asatizah in 2021. Communicating judiciously, as well as having better awareness and support for victims of online harms, will certainly have a big impact as we try to create a safe online space for all segments of society.

(In English): Sir, every technological advancement comes with its risks. The question is not how we stem the tide but how we can rapidly change the way we respect and protect one another as a digital community, as equal participants of an online world. To this end, I hope that as a country, we continue to pursue a national digital strategy that is agile and collaborative in approach as well as inclusive, empowering and human-centered.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member, Ms Tin Pei Ling, for moving this important Motion together with Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Alex Yam.

Ms Tin, in her speech, suggested several strategies and emphasised the need to adopt a comprehensive whole-of-nation approach, working together with private and public sectors in developing an inclusive and safe digital society.

I stand in support of this Motion. My speech comes from an educational perspective and focuses on shared responsibility, awareness and accountability.

In 2014, Singapore embarked on the Smart Nation initiative, with the vision to develop a "Singapore where people will be more empowered to live meaningful and fulfilled lives, enabled seamlessly by technology, offering exciting opportunities for all".

Over the years, we have progressed well, with notable transformation in key domains such as health, transport, finance and education. Singapore is recognised for its success. According to the 2023 Smart City Index published by Swiss Business School, Institute for Management Development, Singapore is the smartest Asian city and the seventh in the world.

Mr Speaker, this is a remarkable achievement and our continuous success is contingent upon inclusivity and our commitment to ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from the technological advancements that define our Smart Nation landscape. We must, however, do more to guarantee that everyone, regardless of age, race or social background, fully benefits from digital services and is able to meaningfully participate in the digital world.

Before sharing my perspective on what more can be done to build an inclusive and safe digital society, I would like to note some concerns.

Sir, as we move toward a digitally interconnected future, cybersecurity threats have increased. Digital fraud attacks are on the rise, with Singapore receiving 32 million such attacks last year. According to Singapore Police Force data, in the first half of 2023, there were close to 25,000 scam and cyber crime cases, an increase of almost 70% from the same period in 2022. Point of concern, more than 50% of the victims of these crimes were young adults aged 20 to 39.

Tactics adopted by the scammers are also changing. Just last week, the media reported a cyber-kidnapping scam that took place in the US. In that case, the victim was a 17-year-old foreign student.

The digital space is not immune to the social issues that exist in the physical world. Online harassment, discrimination and hate speech are widespread, affecting individuals of all ages and from diverse backgrounds.

In a recent survey conducted by SG Her Empowerment, a local independent non-profit organisation, 52% of respondents who reported a personal experience of online harassment or discrimination were between 15 and 24 years of age. In the same survey, two in five victims reported experiencing at least one severe consequence as a result of the harassment or discrimination, including physical and mental health issues and suicidal ideation.

Mr Speaker, the data shows that young people are at greater risk. This was highlighted by the hon Member Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Nadia Samdin. The data also shows that we are aware of the extent of the problem and that we have been progressively trying to mitigate the situation with robust legislation and regulations.

At this juncture, I would like to commend the Government for being proactive and for constantly keeping track of these issues. I would also like to thank the many community agencies who continue to support victims of crime and provide preventive education programmes. Their involvement reinforces the need to work collaboratively and in partnership with the community sector. As we adopt a whole-of-nation approach, it is crucial to recognise the role played by community agencies in working with victims and potential perpetrators.

Now that I have highlighted some of the current challenges, I would like to share my thoughts on potential strategies.

First, digital trust. Mr Speaker, the era of digital advancement presents many possibilities for innovation, connectivity and economic expansion. Yet, to unlock these potentials requires trust and shared responsibility. Unlike most other nations where technological innovation is driven by the private sector, in Singapore, the Government has taken a central role in this space. This approach has yielded notable results, placing Singapore at the forefront of global advancements.

For example, with over half a million Police surveillance cameras and web-based Police portals, Singapore is regarded as one of the world's safest countries. As we know, safety is fundamental in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Here, in Singapore, we have met this need very well.

As we continue to embrace digitalisation, we have also been working towards the active engagement of citizens. We have been focusing on co-creation. However, we also need to work towards cultivating a shared sense of responsibility and nurture active citizenry. Mr Speaker, let me provide an example.

As the Head of Public Safety and Security programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences, I have been working with several groups of students to address issues of cyber crime, scams and specifically, technology-facilitated sexual violence. I am proud to share that since 2020, students from my programme have, with support from community agencies, developed several community engagement projects to raise awareness on technology-facilitated sexual violence.

One of the key learning points from this project is the need to engage young people to be proactive and to tap on their connections to raise awareness.

It is critical to foster a culture of inclusivity by involving those who are likely to use digital services and be harmed by such services, as well as suggesting and implementing effective mechanisms to prevent unlawful behaviours, young people are also able to assist to address the root causes of such behaviours by educating those who may become perpetrators. Such initiatives also provide opportunities to engage young people who may experience mental health issues to come forward and seek assistance.

Second, digital literacy. Mr Speaker, to build a secure digital society, governments and businesses must cooperate both domestically and internationally to prioritise cybersecurity. However, while the Government and the private sector, including companies, have a role to play, cybersecurity attacks are often directed at consumers. As such, consumer cybersecurity awareness is critical.

Empowering individuals with the knowledge and skills to navigate the digital world is fundamental. As we progress with our Smart Nation initiative, with a focus on innovation and increasing productivity, we should simultaneously strengthen digital literacy for all. By doing so, we can ensure that everyone, regardless of age or background, can harness the benefits of technology while understanding the associated risks.

It is equally important to recognise that empowerment is not just about having the power to do certain things. It is also about developing responsible behaviours and accountability. It is more than just sharing and informing individuals the "dos and don'ts". More needs to be done to truly empower individuals to act and be responsible in safeguarding their privacy and the privacy of others in the digital world.

One way to move forward is to consider introducing incentives for responsible online behavior, whether through recognition programmes or other tangible rewards. Positive reinforcement can motivate citizens to actively contribute to the well-being of their communities.

Third, digital citizenship. Mr Speaker, everyone who uses electronic devices to go online and interact with others is participating in a digital world as a digital citizen. Digital citizenship requires individuals to act responsibly online by adhering to the law, protecting privacy, managing reputation and considering how one's online behaviour impacts on oneself, acquaintances and the broader digital community. Mr Speaker, briefly in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Digital citizenship refers to a concept where individuals are responsible and act judiciously when using technology and in the virtual world.

Parents play an important role in shaping a generation that acts wisely and responsibly in the digital world by providing good guidance and support.

Values that need to be taught to children within this context include awareness of the law, safeguarding privacy, managing reputation, as well as considering the impact of their online behaviour on themselves and the global digital community.

(In English): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of digital tools became a necessity. Digital tools allowed the world to continue moving, to remain economically viable by allowing work to be done remotely. Adults were not the only recipient of this advancement. Children and young people relied on digital tools extensively for education and for play.

We were in a crisis mode then, and we had to react and improvise quickly. Now that we are in a stable environment, it is important that parents and teachers support and guide children on how to communicate and collaborate safely and responsibly in online environments.

Just as all children need help from their parents and teachers to become good citizens, today's young people, known as digital natives, also need guidance to learn how to apply citizenship principles in the digital world. Promoting digital citizenship values, emphasising empathy, tolerance and inclusivity will foster a positive online culture and ensure a safe and more harmonious digital society.

Mr Speaker, in summary, constructing a secure and inclusive digital society is a complex challenge that requires a whole-of-nation approach, including cooperation among individuals, communities, governments and businesses. By increasing digital trust, advancing digital literacy and nurturing a culture of digital citizenship, we can lay the foundation for a future where everyone all can engage and thrive in the digital world.

Together, let us shape a Singapore, a Smart Nation that is also a safe nation, with digital society embodying the finest qualities of humanity – a society that is resilient, inclusive and founded on the principles of equality and respect. With this, I support the Motion.

Ms Hany Soh.

Mr Speaker, in order to build an inclusive and safe digital society, the 3Ps must each play their part. And as what Assoc Prof Razwana has just shared with us earlier, it is with mutual trust and shared responsibility, with corporations and community partners continuing to equip users with the right skillsets to function in this rapidly-transforming digital society or providing accessibility options for those who are unable to do so, while helping to deter online threats, such as scams, and educating the public about them at the same time.

I am pleased to note that in the recent years, several of our Woodgrove community partners are already making efforts to make this digital society more accessible for all in our community. One good example can be found in the POSB Woodlands West branch, situated in Woodgrove's Fuchun Neighbourhood Centre. After its renovation, the branch now exclusively offers self-service banking options that are available 24/7, with branch staff continuing to be present during the bank's usual operating hours to guide customers, especially our seniors, on how to access their desired services with the new teller machines. The branch also features a community space specially for conducting talks and seminars in various languages that aim to educate residents further regarding digital banking and e-payment services.

I must also register my appreciation for the Singapore Digital Office (SDO)'s Digital Ambassadors who, in 2023, have supported a total of 12 senior-centric community events in Woodgrove, such as our Seniors' Carnival and digital upskilling workshops.

Notwithstanding that the SG Digital Community Hub at our Fuchun Community Centre had to be closed due to the Community Centre's ongoing major upgrading works, the SDOs continue to work closely with our grassroots organisation to operate roving counters at various Woodgrove locations to raise awareness and motivate our residents to adopt digital technologies and enhance their digital skills.

Despite these efforts, however, many of our seniors in Woodgrove have shared with me that, notwithstanding that they are now equipped with smart phones, they are still apprehensive about exploring and navigating the digital world on their own, even though they are now well capable of using mobile apps like Facebook and WhatsApp to stay in touch with their family and friends. This does not come as a surprise to me, as they are constantly made aware of heart-wrenching stories from fellow Singaporeans who have suffered great financial loss after falling prey to online scams.

A sobering example comes from one of my Woodgrove residents in his late 60s, who had lost close to $800,000 of his and his wife's life savings due to an impersonation scam. The amount was meant to enable the couple to go on their Haj pilgrimage and to see them through their remaining years after retirement.

With news and anecdotes of scams like these being reported on an almost daily basis, how do we ensure that Singaporeans, especially our seniors, attain sufficient trust in the safety of the various digital platforms to begin to use them confidently, yet remain vigilant against the ever-evolving risks?

I believe that large organisations, such as banks and e-commerce platforms, will need to do more to prevent losses from online scams and bear their consequences. Just like what Dr Tan Wu Meng had shared earlier, the approach ought to be consumer protection-centric.

Just two days ago, I attended to one of my Woodgrove residents, Mr Yu, during our weekly Meet-the-People Session, where he shared about his unpleasant experience with his bank since June last year. Back then, Mr Yu was making an online hotel booking when he fell prey to a malware by entering his OTP on a bogus website. He promptly contacted the bank's customer service upon discovering several unauthorised transactions amounting to over $6,000 charged to his credit card. But despite his request to terminate them immediately, Mr Yu was advised by the bank's customer service officer that because the monies have yet to be received by the scammer, he would have to wait until he received his next monthly statement of account as proof before raising a dispute on the fraudulent credit card transactions.

Mr Yu took this officer's advice. Almost six months later, the bank replied after completing their investigations to inform him that he is expected to bear 50% of the unauthorised transacted sum. To add insult to injury, the bank in their written response reminded him "to always take care of your credentials and refer to the bank's website for more information about how to protect from scams."

It is, therefore, understandable that Mr Yu remains aggrieved and perplexed as to why the bank had refused his request to terminate these fraudulent transactions in time. What else could he have done or done better? What should others who find themselves in similar situations do?

Meanwhile, in a recent news article where another bank was interviewed after one of its customers lost his entire life savings due to another malware scam, the bank likewise took a similar position that their customers "remain the singular most effective defence and strongly urged them to exercise vigilance and caution in this ever-evolving threat landscape."

I disagree with the position taken by the banks in both cases, in that they conveniently expected their individual customers to fend for themselves. By taking such an approach, it could deter more from becoming active participants in our digital society and cause more to lose faith in our banks' credibility.

It is the joint responsibility of all stakeholders to commit towards adopting a whole-of-nation approach to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society. Therefore, the banks could and should do more to contribute, such as adopting better anti-phishing solutions, improving authenticity verifications, and being extra vigilant towards abnormal transactions to keep accounts secure and prevent the likelihood of scams.

The children of the elderly couple I spoke about earlier who had lost their entire life savings due to an impersonation scam, have shared with me that banks could have done more to prevent these unauthorised transactions from taking place. Amongst other efforts, the banks ought to have paid more attention to each customer's regular banking patterns. In their parents' case, the couple's bank account had zero withdrawal activity for years until the scammers wiped out over half a million dollars of their savings through two large transactions. The bank should have made calls to them to seek confirmation on the abnormal request before releasing the funds.

There are other solutions that may help in terms of safeguarding funds against scams. In November last year, OCBC introduced its anti-scam security feature called OCBC Money Lock, which allows customers to lock away funds in their bank accounts and can only be unlocked after the customer's identity has been verified by the bank. This is a good initiative which I hope MAS can mandate to be rolled out across all of the banks in Singapore and to encourage sign-ups by our seniors.

In addition, MAS can also consider working with banks and insurance companies to introduce an insurance scheme akin to the concept of Deposit Insurance Scheme, which anyone with a bank account can purchase to protect their monies in the event that they fall prey to an online scam.

Concurrently, we should also step-up collaborations between financial institutions and our community. Upskilling workshops, such as OCBC's Digital Silvers programme, and the digital literacy partnership by DBS Foundation and IMDA, are prime examples of such initiatives. If deployed in conjunction with the previously mentioned measures, the banks can also make use of these workshop as opportunities to promote and encourage seniors to sign up for the "money-lock" features as well as enrolling for the anti-scam insurance to protect funds in their bank accounts. I hope that such workshops can be made easily available, just like those run by the SDOs, and I will explore how I can best help my Woodgrove residents benefit from them. In conclusion, in Mandarin, please, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In recent years, scams continue to evolve, especially online scams. The ever-changing scam methods have made many Singaporeans, especially the seniors, feel very anxious and helpless.

Singapore is not the only country targeted by the scammers. As technologies progress, countries all around the world are facing the thorny issue of how to fight scams.

In October last year, The Straits Times reported that globally, the annual loss due to scams is a staggering $1.4 trillion. In Australia, in 2022, the loss amounted to about S$2.6 billion. Neighbouring countries, like Malaysia, reported in December last year that between January to November, the amount of loss amounted to as high as RM1.3 billion.

How do we prevent ourselves from becoming the next target of these scammers? Some seniors have adopted the "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to stay safe by not trying at all.

In my opinion, that is certainly not ideal and will cause them to fall behind even more in keeping up with the fast-paced transforming digital society. Today, in countries like China, online purchase and mobile payments have become an integral part of Chinese society, with cash payment becoming quickly a thing of the past.

In conclusion, combatting scams require a whole-of-society effort, starting from the public being vigilant and remaining up to date on the types of scams in the wild, assisted by Government-funded information outlets. Meanwhile, corporations such as banks should also work in tandem to enhance digital safety nets. Together, we can work our way towards boosting public confidence, and nurture an inclusive and safe digital society.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Mr Speaker Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) agrees that a whole-of-nation approach to build an inclusive and safe digital society is very much needed. As society digitalised over the past decade, there has been an increase in the prevalence of many varieties of online scams which has lowered the trust level of many Singaporeans in digital tools. Horror stories abound of people losing their life savings in a twinkling of the eye.

Last year, my parents gave me half their life savings to put in my bank account, not in theirs, because they are not confident of not losing it to scams. Their trust level in the security of their money in their bank account has never been so low in their entire lives. I am sure that many other Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Singaporeans share my parents' sentiment.

Over the years, the Government has been promoting financial self-reliance by Singaporeans. For most of us, our own savings is what we have to rely on to meet our expenses and to live in dignity. Any compromise to the security of our savings is a big deal to us. Given the gravity of the issue, I feel that the Government can do more to safeguard citizens' savings and foster a strong culture of consumer protection.

The proposed Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF), which assigns financial institutions and telcos relevant duties to mitigate phishing scams and requires payouts to affected scam victims where these duties are breached, is a step in the right direction, but it is just a baby step. There are two main issues with the SRF.

Firstly, the SRF has a limited scope. It only covers phishing scams and does not cover the whole range of other scams including malware scams, Police official scams, investment and love scams. Its protection is thus rather limited. For example, in the recent case of a family losing their life savings due to downloading malware when they tried to buy organic eggs, the SRF does not help them at all.

Secondly, the duties that financial institutions and telcos are required to carry out are extremely limited. For example, under the SRF, financial institutions are directed to perform four duties:

One, impose at least a 12-hour cooling period after activation of digital token during which high-risk activities cannot be carried out.

Two, send notification alerts for activation of digital token and conduct of high-risk activities.

Three, provide outgoing transaction notifications by way of SMS, email or in-app notification selected by the consumer.

Four, provide a 24/7 reporting channel and a self-service feature for consumers to promptly block online payment transfers from their accounts.

These four duties do not create a sufficient incentive for financial institutions to proactively protect their customers and to remove potential for fraud from their systems. While vigilance and personal responsibility of the consumer are a critical line of defence against scams, the average consumer has less resources to protect themselves against scams as compared to financial institutions.

Financial institutions have the capacity to do more to protect consumers against scams with systems to monitor transactions and detect suspicious payment flows. Large overseas transactions by individuals who rarely or never perform them should immediately trigger alarm bells within the systems of financial institutions. This would not affect businesses that regularly perform such transactions and would not be difficult to implement given the scale and capacity of the IT infrastructure at financial institutions.

In contrast to Singapore's framework, jurisdictions like the UK have moved towards mandating full reimbursement to scam victims by banks, except in cases of fraud or gross negligence by the consumer. This model has also been considered in Australia and the European Union (EU).