Hansard, Wednesday, 22 November 2023

1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has been able to track the effectiveness of ScamShield in preventing scams since it was launched; (b) what percentage of the local population has downloaded this mobile application; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to introduce ScamShield or similar measures to identify and block scammers from using social media, e-commerce platforms and messaging mobile applications like WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram to trick victims.

2 Mr Derrick Goh asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the public adoption rate of ScamShield since its launch; (b) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the effectiveness of ScamShield; and (c) whether ScamShield complements malware detection apps used by banking customers.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together?

Please go ahead.

The iOS and Android versions of the ScamShield mobile app were launched in November 2020 and September 2022 respectively. As of October 2023, there have been about 750,000 downloads. We do not track the number of unique users. A user may download the ScamShield app on multiple devices.

ScamShield has been effective in protecting users from scam calls and SMSes. Since March 2022, about 80,000 unique scam-tainted phone numbers have been blacklisted and blocked by ScamShield and about five million SMSes have been flagged to users as potential scams.

On top of phone calls blocked by ScamShield, the Police work closely with telecommunication companies (telcos) to block mobile lines suspected to be involved in scams. In the first half of 2023, more than 3,700 mobile lines which were believed to be used in scams were flagged by the Police for termination. In addition, telcos blocked about 180 million suspected scam calls at the network level during this period.

The Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) team is making enhancements to the ScamShield app so that users can more easily report scams. It is also working to improve the accuracy of scam SMS detections and to help users more easily set up the correct permission settings.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about measures to identify and block scammers from using social media, e-commerce platforms and messaging mobile applications. While ScamShield is not designed to block scammers on these platforms, it serves as an additional layer of defence and has a reporting function that allows users to alert the authorities about the scam calls and messages they receive. It also complements the Government’s efforts to combat scams. For example, the Police, upon detecting or receiving reports from the public on scammers who are using social media, e-commerce or messaging apps, will ask the platform operators to remove these accounts. In the first half of 2023, more than 10,000 WhatsApp lines and 1,500 online monikers and advertisements that were believed to be used in scams were flagged out by the Police for termination.

The Online Criminal Harms Act, which will be operationalised progressively from the first quarter of 2024, will allow the Police to tackle online scam activities more effectively. Specifically, it provides the Police powers to direct online services to prevent suspected scam accounts or content from interacting with or reaching Singapore users. Police can also require designated online services to implement systems, processes or measures to counter scams, such as requiring the verification of user identities against Government-issued identification documents.

Mr Derrick Goh asked whether ScamShield complements the malware detection apps used by banking customers. The short answer is yes.

Major retail banks have introduced anti-malware security features on their banking apps, which seek to protect banking customers by detecting the presence of malware on their devices, and triggering actions such as blocking access to the banking app. While ScamShield is not designed to detect or block malware, it complements the anti-malware security features on banking apps by protecting users from other attack vectors, namely scam calls and scam SMSes, hence, further mitigating the risk of users falling prey to scams.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, to encourage usage of ScamShield, would the Ministry consider working with the Ministry of Communications and Information and have the app pre-loaded on all new handphones? If the app is pre-loaded on new handphones, it would be easier for us to roll out educational campaigns to encourage all to use ScamShield, especially for our seniors.

Second, I understand that the Minister of State has shared that for scammers using social media, e-commerce and messaging applications such as WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram, the Ministry of Home Affairs actually works with the developers to remove these accounts from these platforms. So, my question is, are they given a timeline as to how fast they are supposed to remove such scam accounts?

I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. On the first question about pre-loading ScamShield, we have considered this before, but we have decided not to proceed. The reasons are as follows.

Firstly, not all users may consent to having ScamShield pre-loaded on their mobile devices.

Secondly, for ScamShield to work effectively, users actually have to set up permission settings. So, even if we were to pre-load the app, if the user does not know how to execute the permission settings, ScamShield will not be able to work effectively.

Thirdly, there is always a possibility that mobile users could deactivate or delete the app after we pre-load it.

So, for these considerations, we decided not to pre-load the ScamShield app, but we will keep this option open if our efforts to further encourage the download of the ScamShield app does not make progress.

On the second question, we work with the app developers as well as the platforms whenever we are informed about scams that are being perpetuated on social media platforms as well as other messaging applications. There is no fixed timeline in place, but we require the operators to remove the content as soon as possible. Sometimes, some of these platforms tell us that they require some time to investigate to make sure that on their end, it adheres to their community standards or that truly, they have conducted their investigations and that, it is, indeed, potentially a scam, and they would then need to go through their processes to remove the advertisement or the otherwise potential scam message.

So, because of these factors, there is no specific timeline that the Police has set out, but depending on the likely harm and impact, the Police would do what is within their powers to encourage the platforms to remove those scam messages as soon as possible.

Mr Derrick Goh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister of State to share if there are plans to upgrade ScamShield protection to cover other channels like emails, WhatsApp messages and, perhaps, malware, which the Minister of State said do not help in protection so far? The reason is, Mr Speaker, the Police have reported that we have already seen losses of $660 million last year and $330 million in the first half of the year. Apart from these losses are the emotional stress on victims. So, a positive reply would be appreciated.

I thank the Member for his question. We should see the use of ScamShield vis-à-vis all the other efforts that the Police together with stakeholders are implementing to prevent the scourge of scams from further impacting our community and society. ScamShield largely performs the function of crowdsourcing so that we know what are the reported scam numbers and scam messages that the Police would verify backend and then, block. But, as we know, there are other stakeholders who are involved. I have talked about how the telcos at the network level have effectively blocked 180 million scam calls at their level in the first half of 2023.

So, we have to look at the use of ScamShield together with all these other channels that we are using to prevent the scourge of scams from further impacting our community.

On the point of malware, the Member would note that in recent times, the major retail banks have already rolled out anti-malware applications via the digital banking apps. The Cyber Security Agency (CSA) has also shared a list of anti-malware security apps that members of the public could download on their own. Some of these apps are for free. So, we need to consider, apart from the ScamShield app, all these other initiatives that would be helpful to the public in preventing scams from further impacting society.

Mr Derrick Goh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, not every user of mobile phones are banking customers or mobile app users. So, to this point, would the Minister of State consider looking at a potential upgrade of ScamShield? And secondly, would the Minister of State consider further upgrades to ScamShield if further monitoring of existing initiatives do not work out as well?

I thank the Member for his questions. I shared in my main reply that, indeed, the GovTech team, specifically, is working on improving the ScamShield app. The current area that they are looking to improve is to increase the value proposition of the ScamShield app to users. For instance, a feedback we have received is that users are not aware if the ScamShield app is actually working in the background of their phones. The reason for that is because currently, ScamShield does not actively inform the user how many calls and SMSes have been blocked. The app works silently in the background. So, that is something that the GovTech team is working on.

Other potential improvements are about in-app reporting of malicious calls and SMSes to make it more user-friendly for users of ScamShield to be able to use it, rather than have to copy and paste the scam messages and to have additional steps when it comes to reporting.

These are the areas that the GovTech team is working on. We feel that it is through improvements in the features, functionality and the user experience of the app which would be key to enhancing the app's download rate.

On the point of malware, indeed, we are not just relying on the actions of the banks, we are not just relying on the digital banking apps of the banks to prevent malware. Indeed, I am aware that there could be mobile users who, unfortunately, download malware unsuspectingly, for instance, when they click on links that are tainted APK files, for instance.

From the perspective of cyber hygiene, this is something that the CSA is working on actively on the ground, together with digital ambassadors and the Infocomms Media Development Authority, to encourage better cyber hygiene practices, so that our members of society do not unwittingly download malware. We also promote messages such as ensuring that any downloads of apps should be done from the official App Store or Google Play Store, for instance.

You would also have read that there are other stakeholders such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board, which has recently announced the default daily withdrawal limits, the CPF withdrawal lock, so on and so forth – all of which are other ways to prevent our population, our society and our members from losing their monies through scams.

I do not think we should see the use of the ScamShield app as the only channel and the only app that would prevent our members of society from becoming victims of scams. I would urge all of us to look at the suite of measures in its totality.

3 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information with respect to the announcement by the National Library Board on 7 November 2023 that it will cease its subscription to an e-learning platform from 15 December 2023, whether the Ministry has considered any solutions to defray the cited reason of a significant increase in cost so that public will be able to continue benefitting from access to the platform.

Sir, the National Library Board (NLB) is committed to making e-learning resources accessible to all, as part of its expanded range of content formats to support reading, learning and discovery.

The current contract for Udemy Business will expire on 15 December 2023. NLB has decided not to award a fresh contract to Udemy Business because the new licensing model will cover a much smaller number of courses than what is available today and restrict the number of users allowed to access these courses. The new licensing model is also several times more expensive than the current contract. Notwithstanding this, Singaporeans who have a continued interest in courses offered by Udemy Business can use their SkillsFuture Credit for such courses and submit their claims directly to the SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) for reimbursement upon completion of their course.

NLB will also continue to identify suitable e-learning resources to replace the offerings by Udemy Business and expects to make available new resources in the coming months. NLB will continue to work with SSG and other local and overseas partners to provide more online learning resources and encourage lifelong learning among Singaporeans.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for this question.

Firstly, can the Senior Minister of State share on a per user basis, what would be the cost involved if the subscriptions were kept, as opposed to how much it cost before the cost increases?

The second supplementary question is in relation to alternative platforms for the users, how do they measure up against the current Udemy Business platform?

And finally, how will the Ministry or, specifically, NLB assist members of the public with the transitions from the current platform to its replacements, especially when it comes to addressing their needs on work or studies?

Sir, the refreshed proposal from the Udemy Business on its online resources is through an open tender or an open procurement approach. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to share some of the commercial sensitivities that might be tied to the proposal. But, perhaps, allow me to elaborate. It is not just about the cost per user. It is about the restricted access to the courses that are available under this new licensing model, which we do not think will meet the needs of the learners in Singapore.

Allow me to use an analogy to explain. In the past, you go to a restaurant, you pay a price at the door, you go in. If it is a buffet, you choose what you want and you eat all you can. You can go to the cooked food section, there is a seafood section, a salad section, there are hot stations where they prepare food for you, then you have the drinks section and the desserts section. Choose what you want and eat all you can for a fixed price. But with a new model, maybe a restaurant tells you that the price that you pay at the door is a few times higher now; and when you go into the restaurant, you are only entitled to a plate of rice and maybe two or three dishes from the cooked food section. Anything else, you would have to top up or pay extra. So, now, you are no longer able to go to the salad section, you cannot go to the drinks section, you cannot go to the desserts section and you cannot go to the seafood section.

So, the question for us is: with a much more expensive and costly model, does this still meet the needs of our learners?

We assure the Member Ms Hany Soh and other Members that NLB is very concerned about the nutritional needs of our Singaporeans, especially the nutrition of the mind, their learning needs. We are actively exploring what other platforms can provide such needs for our learners.

At the same time, we also shared with many members of the public who wrote in about some of the other alternative resources. For example, you have LearnX, which is on learning.nlb.gov.sg. It is a platform where NLB provides curated resources for our learners. We also shared a list of other platforms that are available for learners to tap on in the meantime, as we look at other resources, other online platforms for our learners, in the future.

So, I wish to assure Members that this is something that NLB is very, very keen on because we want to support the lifelong learning and discovery needs of Singaporeans of all ages.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply.

I just heard the Senior Minister of State say that learners can use the SkillsFuture Credit to claim for Udemy courses. But the last time I checked on the SkillsFuture website, Udemy courses are not available. It used to be, a long time ago, but it was discontinued for some time already. And, as far as I know, there is only one online course provided called eCornell. So, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that what he said just now is still accurate?

Sir, I would have to get back to Mr Giam for his question. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information", Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

From the information I am given, it is possible for Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy Business to use their SkillsFuture Credit for such courses and submit these claims directly to SSG for reimbursement upon completion of their course. But perhaps, if Mr Giam would like to seek specific clarification on specific courses, he can write to us. We will take a look and check it out.

4 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether an update can be provided on the digital cooperation between Singapore and Indonesia through the Nongsa Digital Park (NDP) and its outlook; (b) whether the cooperation in the NDP special economic zone has led to higher growth for Singapore’s information communication technology sector; and (c) how much has this cooperation led to more jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Nongsa Digital Park is a commercial project in Batam attracting and housing tech talents to support the needs of companies in Singapore and Southeast Asia. Nongsa Digital Park is doing well. Around 1,000 tech talents in Nongsa Digital Park are currently servicing some 250 Singapore-based companies.

Singapore-based data centre players, such as Princeton Digital Group, GDS Holdings and Gaw Capital, have also announced data centre investments in Nongsa Digital Park to serve Southeast Asia. These projects support Singapore and Indonesia’s digital economies and create jobs for both countries.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for her reply. It is good to hear that there are 1,000 tech talents involved. But can I ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions?

First, can the Minister of State elaborate further on the type of sectors that the 250 companies come from? My second supplementary question is, can the Minister of State also give us an update on the Nongsa Digital Town she mentioned? How is this digital bridge helping Singapore-based companies access the growth of Indonesia's digital economy?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his two supplementary questions. If I could elaborate and share a bit of context, Nongsa Digital Park is Singapore's digital bridge to Indonesia's digital economy. Many will remember it was launched in 2018. It has only been five years and for most of the five years, we were mired in the pandemic. Despite that, it now serves about 250 Singapore-based companies.

The close proximity of Batam, Bintan, Karimun – which we refer to as the BBK region in short – and the park's status as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), these two key factors offer our Singapore-based companies advantages to tap the promising growth opportunities of Indonesia's growing digital economy.

He asked about the profile and the sector. I am happy to update him that the 250 Singapore-based companies that I have shared earlier in my reply harness the tech talent services in Nongsa Digital Park and they include multinational corporations (MNCs), small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as well as startups from industries such as the financial sector, digital and creative media as well as software engineering, just to name a few.

I will cite a few companies, just to give him a sensing. Some of these big companies are AIA Singapore, which is an insurance MNC; Infinite Studios, which is a media company; and Infineon, a semi-conductor MNC. And another quick example is VA Insight, which is a Singapore-based software engineering company.

As for his question about other sectors, earlier on in my main reply, I talked about data centres and the three quick examples I shared – GDS Holdings, Princeton Digital Group as well as Gaw Capital – all these are important projects during this time. It is a vote of confidence in the potential of the Nongsa Digital Park.

I must specify that there is a difference between the Nongsa Digital Park, under which there is a launch of the Nongsa Digital Town. The Nongsa Digital Town, if you remember, was only launched two years ago by Minister Chan Chun Sing, in his capacity in the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), and his counterpart. The objective of the Nongsa Digital Town really is to further bridge the tech companies and talent in Singapore and Indonesia. I am happy to share that the Nongsa Digital Town is actually designed by Surbana Jurong, and in close partnership, developed by PT Citra Sinar Global.

He asked in the second supplementary question about the progress. It has been two years, it is undergoing construction and when completed, the Nongsa Digital Town will house an additional 8,000 tech talents that will continue to serve Singapore-based companies. The Nongsa Digital Town will have co-working spaces, digital training centres, offices, lifestyle centres and hotels for business travellers. The initial phase of the development – there is one interesting development called The Hive, and it will be completed in the second half of next year. When completed, it will comprise a mixed development of food and beverage (F&B) outlets, co-working spaces and also community spaces.

So, I want to use this platform to assure Mr Saktiandi Supaat that MTI and our economic agencies will certainly work closely with our Indonesian counterparts and industry stakeholders to continue to expand partnership between Singapore-based companies and the BBK region. We will do so by leveraging the complementary strengths of Singapore and the BBK region – I mentioned the close proximity – and also identify mutually beneficial opportunities in Indonesia's digital economy.

5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry keeps a record of the current number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adult persons with intellectual disabilities, in particular those who are low functioning and, if so, what is the number; (b) what are the current avenues available to help such caregivers in the event they lose their mental capacity due to reasons including an early onset of dementia; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider developing and implementing early identification and support programmes for such caregivers.

Mr Speaker, we do not directly track the number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adults with intellectual disabilities. However, based on our records, there are about 900 adult persons with intellectual disabilities who are enrolled in our disability care services and living at home with at least one caregiver aged 65 years and above.

We encourage all seniors, including caregivers of persons with disabilities, to plan early for their own long-term care needs. This includes drawing up a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), which allows a person aged at least 21 to voluntarily appoint other individuals to make decisions and act on their behalf if they lose mental capacity. For those who lose their mental capacity without an LPA, their family members can apply to the Court to be appointed as deputies and make decisions in their best interest. If there is no suitable person who can apply to be their deputy, a professional deputy can apply to the Courts to act on their behalf.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) offers the Assisted Deputyship Application Programme in Special Education schools and MSF disability care services to assist caregivers of persons with disabilities and no mental capacity to apply for deputyship. More than one caregiver can apply to be appointed by the Court as deputies for an adult person with disability and no mental capacity. Should one of the appointed deputies lose mental capacity, the other deputy or deputies can continue to support the person with disability.

We encourage caregivers of persons with disabilities to plan ahead and approach SG Enable and the Special Needs Trust Company early for future care planning support for their loved ones, including deputyship matters, financial planning, respite care and peer support.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answers. Will the Ministry consider developing and implementing an early identification and support programme for such caregivers that is on a multi-agency basis, beyond MSF and perhaps with the Ministry of Health (MOH), Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), with the Active Ageing Centres (AACs) on the ground, and in fact, including other stakeholders like the Law Society and doctors? I say lawyers and doctors, because they may have to interface with such families in the course of their related work. Rather than to leave it to the families to seek help when they have illness like dementia, because at that point in time, they may not have sufficient extended family support. So, I would urge the Government to consider looking into this.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Some of that work is already ongoing. In the reply by MOH to hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh's Parliamentary Question in May 2022, MOH has made clear that the outreach by AIC on LPA awareness, on things such as future care planning, is already ongoing. AIC, together with the community partners on the ground, is already doing a lot of work to make sure that the drawing up of an LPA and other related end-of-life or future care planning instruments are as well-known or as propagated as possible.

But I do note that there is always capacity to do more.

Also, in addition, the fee waiver that has been announced in March 2023 and the extension of an additional three years, these are further incentives on the ground to help encourage the drawing up of LPAs in advance. There has been some momentum, from what I know, there has been quite a bit of community ground-up efforts as well to encourage the drawing up of LPAs as well as advanced care plans. But we note that there is always room and capacity to do more.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Yeo Wan Ling –

6 To ask the Minister for Transport in light that passengers of private hire cars and taxis have taken to videoing in-vehicle disputes on devices such as handphones, whether LTA will consider allowing such drivers to install passenger facing video recorders with audio functions.

Question No 6.

Since 2019, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has allowed taxi and private hire car drivers to install passenger-facing video recorders with audio functions in their vehicles, with prior permission from LTA, and only at LTA-authorised installation centres.

To protect passengers' privacy and guard against misuse, recordings made by these devices can only be accessed for investigation and enforcement purposes, such as in fare-related disputes and by authorised Government personnel and LTA-authorised persons only. They must also be stored securely.

Vehicles with such devices must be affixed with a notice to inform passengers and passengers must also be informed by operators should such a vehicle be matched to them. This is to give passengers a choice on whether they wish to take a vehicle equipped with such a recording device.

Taxi and private hire car drivers may not install and use unauthorised recording devices, such as their personal mobile phones, to record audio and/or video within their vehicles.

We encourage both point-to-point (P2P) drivers and commuters to treat each other with respect and act graciously when providing or using P2P services. In cases where drivers have been harassed by passengers who have used recording devices and shared these recordings online without the drivers' consent, drivers may seek recourse, including under the Protection from Harassment Act.

7 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the job openings for fresh graduates in the third quarter of 2023 (3Q2023) compare against the same period in 2022; (b) what is the proportion of recently employed fresh graduates who secured (i) contractual and (ii) full-time roles; and (c) considering that the 3Q2023 Labour Market Advance Release reported a decline in the proportion of firms with an intention to hire due to worsened business expectations, what is the Government's assessment of the impact on fresh graduates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no data on job openings for fresh graduates, which I shall use as a collective term to also include graduates who just finished National Service. This is because employers do not usually specify the demographic requirements of job applicants in their job advertisements, as this is a breach of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP).

Based on the annual Graduate Employment Survey (GES), employment outcomes for fresh graduates from our autonomous universities, polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) have remained strong. Amongst fresh graduates who were looking for jobs, about 90% of the 2022 cohort were employed within six months of graduation. Of those employed, 80% were in full-time permanent employment, which is comparable to pre-COVID levels. The remaining 20% in part-time temporary or freelance employment were mostly in such jobs by choice, with the majority doing so to pursue further studies.

Ms Nadia also asked about the proportion of fresh graduates in contractual roles. The GES does not collect this information.

Full-time permanent employment includes contracts lasting one year or more.

While hiring sentiments have dipped in the third quarter of 2023, the overall labour market remains tight. The number of job vacancies has trended downwards but remained high at 87,900 as at June 2023 and the ratio of job vacancies to unemployed persons stood at 1.94.

We have been highlighting the downward trend in terms of the job vacancies because of the tougher, uncertain economic outlook that is facing us, with the economic headwinds in the next few quarters. We will continue to closely monitor the situation and we will stand ready to assist our graduates. Fresh graduates can reach out to Education and Career Coaches in their respective Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) should they require support in their job search or tap on Workforce Singapore's (WSG) career matching services.

Ms Nadia.

Thank you. I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I just have two follow-up supplementary questions. The first, whether there is any statistics on underemployment, in terms of whether the graduates going into these roles are facing that issue? The second, I know the Minister mentioned career counselling, WSG, and so on. Are there any other more specific resources for fresh graduates that they may tap for upskilling in the interim, while looking for a job, because SkillsFuture may not be so applicable to the younger graduates?

I thank the Member, Ms Nadia, for her supplementary questions. First, on underemployment, the measure that we have is time-related under-employment. Because of the tight labour market, time-related underemployment has been on a downward trend.

Today, of all employed residents in Singapore, time-related underemployment accounts for about 3% of the entire employed workforce for residents. For fresh graduates, it is way below that. It is 1.9% of fresh graduates today that have time-related under-employment.

In terms of the programmes, we have quite an extensive range of programmes to support our fresh graduates. At the IHLs, our students and graduates can tap on the Education and Career Counselling Services to find out more about jobs and what kind of opportunities and skill adjacencies they can have by upskilling.

Leading Government agencies are working with industry partners. We are also working with the Labour Movement and with the unions to facilitate the entry of polytechnic and ITE graduates into good jobs within key priority sectors with attractive starting wages and also meaningful career progression pathways.

In the information and communications technology sector, we work with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). There is a TechSkills Accelerator programme for ITE and polytechnics called the TechSkills Accelerator for ITE and Polytechnics Alliance; and this was set up in 2022. This is to drive the shift in hiring practices in the tech industry from one that is qualification-based to one that is skills-based.

Additionally, the Ministry of Education (MOE) is also scaling up Work-Study programmes where fresh polytechnic and ITE graduates are placed into jobs where they can deepen their skills through a structured training programme that includes on-the-job training while they are pursuing careers which are related to the discipline of study.

On top of that, we have Education and Career coaches and the career-matching services that WSG continues to provide, which offers a very good supplement to the current Education and Career Guidance programme provided by MOE as well as the IHLs.

There is an entire slew of programmes available today for them to tap on. Notwithstanding that, we anticipate this tightness to ease in terms of the labour situation because of the uncertainties that we are entering into over the next one to two quarters. We will not hesitate to step up, and step in, to help our graduates further, should the need arise.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, can I ask the Minister whether there is any growth in the starting pay of the most recent batch of graduates, given that inflation is very high now?

I do not have the statistics offhand. Perhaps Mr Leong can file a subsequent Parliamentary Question on this. I am happy to address it. We are going to release the Labour Market Report in December. There will be statistics to show that as well. That should come out within a month.

Senior Minister of State, Tan Kiat How.

Sir, thank you. I just wanted to reply to Member Mr Gerald Giam's question just now. I have verified with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) colleagues. Just to reaffirm what I said – Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy can use their SkillsFuture credits for such courses and submit their claims directly to SSG for reimbursement, upon completion of the courses. [Please refer to "Solutions to Defray Cost Increases in National Library Board's Decision to Cease Subscription to E-learning Platform", Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

8 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the current measures in place to tackle the rising number of Telegram channels selling non-consensual and illegally obtained sexually explicit materials, especially after the previous occurrence of the Telegram chat group SG Nasi Lemak; (b) what is the Government's assessment of our enforcement system’s current ability to tackle and deter such crimes in a timely way; and (c) what more can be done in working with online platforms to prevent such recurrences.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have laws against the sale or distribution of non-consensual and illegally obtained sexually explicit materials. The Police take a very serious view of such offences and have taken firm action against the perpetrators in cases which had come to their attention.

To deal with the online dissemination of such harmful content, we have updated our laws, such as with the introduction of the Online Criminal Harms Act in 2023. When the Online Criminal Harms Act is operationalised progressively from the first quarter of 2024, the Police can issue a Disabling Direction to online platforms, such as Telegram, to prevent such materials on the platform from being accessed by Singapore users.

Non-compliance by the online platforms with these Directions will be an offence. In these instances, the Competent Authority can also issue an Access Blocking Order, App Removal Order or Service Restriction Order to the Internet Service Providers or app stores, to restrict access to the online service provided by the platform or part of the online service, to prevent the criminal activity and content from being accessed by persons in Singapore.

Online platforms also have a responsibility to proactively curb the spread of harmful online content and to ensure that their services are safe for their users. Under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) issued the Code of Practice for Online Safety, which took effect on 18 July 2023. The Code of Practice requires designated social media services with significant reach or impact to put in place systems and processes to minimise exposure to harmful content for users in Singapore. The six designated services are Facebook, HardwareZone, Instagram, TikTok, X or formerly Twitter, and YouTube. Singapore users can report harmful content to the designated services for appropriate actions to be taken. The IMDA will periodically review the need to designate other social media services with significant reach and impact as necessary, including Telegram.

The effectiveness of our enforcement system depends on the responsiveness of the online services. To date, Telegram has not responded to Police's requests to remove access to accounts disseminating sexually explicit materials. However, there has recently been some progress in our engagement with Telegram. We will continue to work with them, and other online platforms, to better protect Singapore users from harmful content.

Ms Nadia.

Thank you. I am looking forward to the Online Harms Act. Just two follow-up questions. Beyond the online platforms – and I am glad to know that there has been some progress with Telegram and here we are really talking about non-consensual and illegally obtained material – two of my supplementary questions are about how we can go further upstream, beyond the punishment for perpetrators. What more can Government and society do to create a more respectful culture between men and women and, secondly, to help survivors who have faced such incidents, which can be very traumatising?

I thank the Member for her suggestions and feedback about the necessity of going upstream. Indeed, it is important to create a respectful culture between men and women, boys and girls, from an early age. So, I would like to cite examples from the Ministry of Education's (MOE) Character and Citizenship Education, where students are taught to respect all persons, regardless of race, language, religion, gender and age. MOE's sexuality education also seeks to help students develop positive self, social emotional competencies, healthy relationships and values.

Most of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have, similarly, compulsory modules on respect and appropriate behaviour for the students. I understand that the remaining IHLs are working to introduce similar modules. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs", Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Correction By Written Statement section.]

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) also has several campaigns that aim to encourage respectful behaviour among family members and also when it comes to intimate partners, because if there is no practice of respect in such relationships, in the egregious cases, we might see sexual violence.

MSF reaches out to partners across the people, private and public sectors to deliver domestic violence awareness training. We also work with social service agencies on how to spot signs of violence, how to counsel victims, survivors as well as perpetrators, and also offer help to those experiencing physical violence or sexual violence.

On the Singapore Police Force end, the Police set up the sexual crime and family violence command in April, for better oversight of the management of sexual crime and family violence cases. The command is staffed by Police officers who have specialised expertise in handling sexual crime and family violence cases. They also possess good victim management skills. Police may also activate victim care volunteers, under the Victim Care Cadre programme, to provide emotional support to victims or survivors during the course of investigations.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) would consider implementing regulations to stop apps from targeting minors or vulnerable young children from accessing these apps? There was a recent CNA article in which the reporters said that some of these apps were meant to target minors who were trying to access dating apps, and as a result, there were passes, some indecent comments made to the minors.

So, would MHA consider, say, requiring these app owners to require members signing up to use their Singpass before allowing them to sign up, so this will make sure that those who are minors would not be able to sign up for such apps?

I thank the Member for his question. On his specific clarification, that would come under the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and IMDA, so if he were able to file a separate Parliamentary Question on it, they would be able to answer.

But what I would say is that I mentioned the Broadcasting Act earlier, and that the IMDA had issued the Code of Practice for Online Safety. So, within that framework, indeed, age verification for the use of apps and as to whether or not certain apps should be accessible to certain age groups, that is a conversation that IMDA is having with the platforms.

But in the actual execution, and what the IMDA can do about it and how they can hold those platforms accountable, it would be through the amended Broadcasting Act as well as the Code of Practice on Online Safety, which I had mentioned earlier.

9 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information with regard to the data security incident involving the personal data of about 655,000 members of a shopping loyalty programme operated by a luxury resort operator in Singapore (a) whether the incident was reported to the authorities and, if so, when was it reported; and (b) what was the reason provided to the authorities for the three-week delay in notifying affected members.

Mr Speaker, on 7 November 2023, Marina Bay Sands (MBS) announced a breach of its customers' loyalty programme membership data that took place on 19 and 20 October 2023. MBS has since notified affected individuals.

Singapore takes breaches of personal data seriously. The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) requires all organisations to put in place reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in their possession or control, to prevent unauthorised access, disclosure or modification. The Guide on Managing and Notifying Data Breaches under the PDPA sets out clear timelines and requirements that organisations must comply with.

MBS discovered the data breach on 20 October 2023, and notified the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) on 24 October 2023. This meets the timeframes for notification to PDPC as set out in the earlier mentioned guide.

The Member may ask why notifications are not required to be made immediately. That is really because in the usual follow-up to the discovery of a data breach, there are usually four things that we would like the organisations to undertake.

First is that they must immediately seek to contain the breach. So, that is the immediate priority. The second is that they must then make best efforts to assess the degree and the extent to which the data breach has resulted in loss of data. The third is then they must assess whether this falls within the requirements for notification, and if it does, then they must proceed to make the report. And the fourth is that they must then evaluate their containment efforts, whether they are secure.

So, there are these four steps, and because the priority is on containment and assessment, PDPC does give the organisation a little bit of time before they make the notification report to the PDPC.

With that as background, let me assure the Member that PDPC is conducting investigations into this incident. It will ascertain whether there was significant harm to affected individuals and correspondingly, whether affected individuals were notified in a timely manner. PDPC will provide their findings in due course.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank the Minister for her response to my Parliamentary Question. I have a few supplementary questions in relation to that.

Firstly, in relation to the PDPC's investigation findings, do we have an estimated timeline as to when that will be completed and whether that would be subsequently published to the public for information?

Secondly, subsequent to the reporting by MBS to the PDPC, whether the PDPC has received any reports from members who are affected, especially, and how this particular incident has affected these members and whether any of them has been further assisted since then?

Thirdly, this is in relation to whether the Ministry or the PDPC would consider it necessary to impose further specific or enhancement of obligations to these organisations that possesses large volumes of personal data, for example, through licensing conditions, where applicable?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Let me try to address them in turn.

The first is on whether the findings of its investigations will be made public – the answer is yes. As to how long that will take, it goes to the complexity of the investigations. And so, it is difficult to say in advance what the duration is likely to be.

Her second question relates to whether there were any follow-ups from affected members of MBS. The PDPC received reports from two of those members who were affected. Essentially, they wanted to draw the PDPC's attention to this, in case it was not notified, or it was not yet aware of the breach. And the second is that they also asked that the PDPC take MBS to account for this breach which, of course, the PDPC intended to do in any case.

As to how these affected members were being assisted by MBS, I think, in the first place, it is most important for the members to know what types of data have been accessed or revealed as a result of this breach. And so, when MBS notified the affected members, it did clarify that the types of personal data that were revealed, included the name, contact information, country of residence and membership number as well as tier. This was the extent of the breach that the MBS was able to ascertain.

It further provided advice to the affected members on how they could safeguard their accounts with MBS, as well as other kinds of personal information. As a responsible measure, they provided a contact for follow-up enquiries, in case the affected members wanted to clarify on various other aspects.

Ms Soh's third question had to do with the organisations that could be in possession of large volumes of data. Our position today already states that a higher standard of personal data protection is required when organisations hold large quantities of different types of personal data or hold data that might be more sensitive, such as insurance, medical and financial data.

In such cases, organisations are required to implement enhanced data protection practices as stipulated in the PDPC's guide to data protection practices for information and communications technology (ICT) systems.

In addition, the PDPC has issued an advisory guideline on enforcement for data protection provisions that makes clear that failure to put in place adequate safeguards for large volumes of sensitive personal data can be taken as an aggravating factor in calculating the level of penalties to be imposed on an organisation. I hope that addresses the Member's questions.

10 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Health in view of the Health Sciences Authority's assessment of risdiplam which cited data showing improvements in motor function following 12 months of risdiplam treatment as compared with placebo or historical data, whether the Rare Diseases Fund can include medications, such as risdiplam, to treat spinal muscular atrophy.

Mr Speaker, my answer will also address Question Nos 24 and 25 for written answer in today's Order Paper.

The Rare Disease Fund (RDF) is a charity fund for which the Government matches donations three-to-one, and it is managed by the RDF Committee (RDFC) comprising community representatives under the advice of a panel of medical experts.

The RDFC oversees the RDF's fundraising efforts and donor engagement. The expansion of RDF to cover Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products (CTGTPs) and the ability to draw on the principal donation to spend on CTGTPs are fairly recent arrangements, and the RDFC will communicate with new donors.

On Mr Ong's suggestion to publish an annual report, the Ministry of Health (MOH) will relay this to the RDFC for its consideration.

Currently, the RDF has listed seven treatments for five conditions. This is based on the clinical effectiveness of these treatments and if the RDF is adequate to support all known patients requiring the same treatment. Since November 2022, the RDF has received and supported applications from eight patients.

We hope that donors will consider supporting the RDF so that more treatments and conditions can be listed, and more patients can be supported.

Separate from the RDF, MOH will review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal muscular atrophy treatments for subsidies and mainstream financing. In the interim, subsidised patients who face concerns affording these treatments may approach Medical Social Workers to apply for MediFund.

Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. It is good to know that the RDF is continuously reviewed to improve access for rare disease patients and is also considering greater transparency of the fund. I just have one supplementary question.

While I understand that the RDF is ultimately limited by donor contributions, are there considerations to modify the medicine eligibility criteria of the RDF, such that all the medicines that clearly enhance quality of life can be included, even if extension of life span is not evidenced?

I thank the Member for the question. I appreciate his concern. The RDF is actually set up and gets advice from an expert panel of senior doctors with experience in rare disease management and decides on a list of medicines and conditions covered under the RDF. So, actually, there is expertise in that space and many of them would be able to guide as to what would then be included in that list. Medicines, as explained, can only be listed if there is sufficient investment income to support all known patients for that same medicine. So, these are some of the limitations of the RDF.

11 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the rental cap announced for Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar 2024 will be a permanent feature at festival related bazaars going forward; and (b) whether the Government will consider such rental caps for NEA hawker centres and commercial properties leased out by Government agencies.

Mr Speaker, in the course of planning for Bazaar 2024, Wisma Geylang Serai (WGS) has reviewed the proposed rental for Bazaar 2024 in light of several learning points from the bazaar held in 2023. This includes feedback received from the stakeholders, including stallholders as well as patrons. WGS has also considered that Bazaar 2024 would likely be held on a smaller scale due to redevelopment works of the Geylang Serai Cultural Belt and would also be held for a slightly shorter duration. Given the above, WGS decided on introducing a rental cap for Bazaar 2024.

The People's Association (PA) and WGS will continue to review the operation of the rental framework in the light of prevailing conditions before deciding on subsequent bazaars and trade fairs, which it organises.

On part (b) of the Parliamentary Question, other Government agencies may have different policies and considerations in relation to the pricing of rentals for hawker centres and commercial properties, which are quite different matters from considering the pricing of a bazaar like the Ramadan Bazaar.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. I understand the reasons which the Minister has shared in terms of the shorter duration and smaller scale; hence, the price cap.

I was wondering whether the Ministry will consider instituting mechanisms similar to a price cap, but also considering some of these factors just to ensure that there is greater pricing visibility and so that we do not see a repeat of what happened in the last two years where, I think the last price cap was in 2019, and subsequently, we saw the rent shoot up quite significantly.

Thank you, Sir. I understand the point. If you look at the mechanism behind calculating the bazaar, I think Mr Chua said he understood the slightly shorter duration. So, what we did was we looked at the average rental 2023 and looked at the number of stalls that are available and the duration and, by and large, when we work out the average rental in 2023, against the number of stalls that were available this year, the average rental would be about $500 per day, roughly.

The cap that is going to be introduced in 2024 is designed to keep it at around, roughly, the same level or a little bit below. But the point is that there is a certain basis on which stall operators can now make a bid for the stalls, knowing that there will be this cap. And I think, to that extent, there is certainty. That is one immediately good outcome of this.

But the other factors, such as, what are the prevailing conditions, how large it will be, for how long it will be held, and those sometimes vary from year to year. So, we will take all that into account in subsequent years and bear in mind what Mr Chua has said, but look at, overall, achieving the optimal experience for both stall holders as well as for patrons.

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Government can (i) provide subsidies for fertility screening and (ii) introduce a new specific category of fertility screening for the use of MediSave.

Mr Speaker, the Government provides means-tested subsidies of up to 70% for fertility tests that are medically indicated. This helps to keep fertility tests affordable for all patients.

There are many requests for tests and treatments to be eligible for MediSave deduction. They need to be prioritised and carefully considered, to strike a balance between improving healthcare affordability, ensuring MediSave adequacy and keeping CPF contribution rates reasonable for all. The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to review our financing schemes including MediSave to ensure fertility healthcare services remain affordable.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. And I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think there was a recent report which showed that Singaporeans, in general, spend about 3.4 years of trying to conceive before finally getting help when they cannot. And we know as well that the trend is that Singaporeans are getting married later in life. So, time is of the essence here.

Could I ask: one, whether MOH is looking into how to create more awareness about the importance and the need for fertility testing at a younger age; and two, I really think that price might be a factor and so I am hoping that subsidies can be extended to all, rather than a selective few?

I thank the Member for his question and his consistent and persistent advocacy on this issue. I note the concerns. I will answer his second question first in respect of the funds and subsidies. As I have mentioned, these tests are medically indicated. It means that, if the patient or the couple goes to the doctor, they will then recommend the specific test that the patient requires, based on their conditions. It is very couple-centric. I think that is important because then, you are sizing the subsidy and support for that.

And when they are medically indicated and refer to the specialists outpatient clinics in our public healthcare institutions, they get subsidies and it is up to 70%. So, in that sense, there are already sufficient subsidies that ensure that if they need the support, they need the help, they will get the subsidies needed.

There is a problem then. The issue is they are not going to get the help needed and I think that is an important point you raised. It is something that we need to continue looking at. Already, as it stands, we have the guideline for couples, especially for women, who are below 35 years old, if they are below 35 years old and they have been trying to conceive for a year and have not been able to conceive, they are encouraged to go to see a doctor. If they are above 35 years old and they have been trying to conceive for six months, they are asked to already go.

I believe that with various efforts by different partners who are also supporting this message, hopefully, there will be greater awareness. I think there are a few things that we can perhaps leverage on. We have organisations, like "I Love Children", which also encourages checking for fertility treatments. And as we are also rolling out our Marriage and Parenthood packages, these also opportunities for us to encourage couples to take note of these things. I am also thinking that with Healthier SG, especially if it continues to be rolled out to the younger groups, you have opportunity for more individualised healthcare plan.

Through these channels, we hope to see better awareness and people are more encouraged to then check on their fertility status.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, just one more quick question. It is back to the subsidies again because I do think it is important. Could I just ask whether MOH has done a cost benefit analysis? I know I am always asking Government to spend more, but perhaps, if we spend more in getting people to do their fertility screening at a younger age, we might then spend less in providing subsidies for IVF treatment, which is even more expensive and which costs the Government quite a fair bit currently.

I am glad the Member asked that question. As I have mentioned, this is something that we continually review. But, as it stands, currently, there are no evidence-based population level fertility screening tests because it makes more sense for the test to be ordered and recommended when they are medically indicated, rather than to give a screening to the whole group. So, in that sense, there is no cost-effectiveness to roll it out at that level. I think it is something we will continue to monitor and when the evidence changes or if there is some data to the contrary, these are the things that we can look at.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Yeo Wan Ling –

13 To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past five years, how many employers have insufficient medical and accident insurance coverage for their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to pay for their MDWs' medical and hospitalisation bills; and (b) whether there are avenues of financial support for employers who are unable to pay for their MDWs medical and hospitalisation bills.

Question No 13.

Mr Speaker, employers are responsible for their Migrant Domestic Workers' (MDWs) medical expenses. To support employers in meeting these obligations, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) requires all employers of Work Permit holders, including MDWs, to purchase medical insurance for their workers.

In the last five years, about 95% of all hospitalisation bills by MDWs fell within $15,000, which was the minimum insurance coverage required before 1 July 2023. MOM has since enhanced the medical insurance requirements for new policies or renewals and this took effect from 1 July 2023. The higher annual claim limit of $60,000 is estimated to cover about 99% of all bills.

We encourage MDW employers to transition to the enhanced medical insurance early, even if their existing medical insurance policy is not due for renewal yet. This will better protect employers against large unforeseen medical bills. Employers who face financial difficulties paying for their MDW's medical bills may approach medical social workers at the public healthcare institutions for assistance.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply.

Many Singaporean families rely on foreign domestic workers as key family caregivers, looking after young children, seniors and infirmed members of the family. Over the past year, I have seen a number of cases at my Meet-the-People-Session families who have been caught in medical emergencies with their helpers.

Given that healthcare costs are likely to rise in Singapore and we have more instances of retired and lower-income families dipping into their savings to pay for the unexpected hospitalisation fees for the helpers, could the Ministry consider the use of the employer's MediSave for their helpers? Could the Ministry also consider financial counselling, as a module during the employer's orientation programme?

I thank hon Mr Yip Hon Weng for the two supplementary questions. On the first one, MediSave is a national saving scheme and it is meant to help Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents set aside part of their income to meet their healthcare needs. We should protect this intent of MediSave.

Individuals will not be able to use MediSave to pay for medical bills incurred by their MDWs who should be covered by the medical insurance mandated by MOM. Employers who face difficulties paying the medical bills of their MDWs despite the insurance coverage may approach medical social workers, which I mentioned earlier on.

On the second question of financial planning to be included in the employers' orientation programme, this is a short programme that has been introduced to educate and also help employers understand their responsibilities towards caring for their MDWs. This includes the requirement for them to purchase medical insurance for the MDWs and also keeping their homes and workplace conditions safe for MDWs, such as the use of the bamboo poles for hanging laundry outside the flats of high-rise buildings.

The intent of this programme is really very targeted and focused. We prefer to keep this course tight, so that employers are able to complete this very important course.

Again, for employers who are unable to meet their obligations of paying for the medical expenses of their migrant domestic workers, we ask that they approach the medical social workers in our public healthcare institutions for advice.

The following question stood in the name of Dr Tan Wu Meng –

14 To ask the Minister for National Development in the past two years (a) how many incidents of pet abductions have been reported; (b) what proportion of these cases have had the pets rescued and returned to their owners well and unharmed; and (c) what is the approach when alleged abductions of community cats, which do not have specific named owners but are well-known in the local community, are reported.

Question No 14, Sir.

Sir, I understand that Dr Tan is not feeling well, which is why he is not in the Chamber. But he texted me to remind me that this question is on behalf of his Clementi residents.

Sir, instances of pets being abducted or stolen from their owners may be regarded as theft and such cases should be reported to the Police. Over the past two years, the National Parks Board (NParks) has not encountered any such cases.

As for community cats, they live in the open and move about freely, making it challenging to trace their exact whereabouts. There could be various reasons for a community cat going missing. It may have succumbed to other health and safety risks from its environment, such as exposure to the elements, road traffic accidents and diseases. It could also have been adopted. That said, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a community cat has been abused or mistreated, NParks will investigate and take the appropriate enforcement action.

NParks will continue to work with stakeholders, including community caregivers and animal welfare groups, to promote the welfare of pet and community animals. This includes encouraging responsible pet ownership and community caregiving, as well as the rehoming of suitable animals.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I am asking this on behalf of Dr Tan Wu Meng and, of course, on behalf of his Clementi residents also. He reminded me to say that.

Dr Tan had a resident who had a community cat which was taken away by another resident who was not from Clementi. Dr Tan was wanting to ask whether there is any recourse or approach to be taken when there is a community cat which is known to the community, but there are no official owners and there are eyewitnesses sharing that the cat was being taken away and there are concerns about this and the cat appears to be distressed as well.

Sir, the adoption of a community cat into one's home does not constitute theft, as such cats do not belong to anyone. That said, in the circumstances that the Member has raised, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the community cat has been abused, mistreated or is in distress, please let NParks know, NParks will investigate and take the appropriate enforcement action.

15 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Traffic Police will monitor and take action against drivers of vehicles with illegally modified exhaust systems that cause noise pollution along expressways, such as the East Coast Parkway; and (b) whether enhanced action can be taken against such drivers.

Sir, enforcement against illegal modification of vehicles, which includes illegal modification of exhaust systems, is done by the Land Transport Authority (LTA). LTA conducts regular enforcement operations to deter and detect illegal modifications. The Traffic Police (TP) will refer such cases it comes across to LTA.

Individuals or workshops that make illegal modifications and individuals who drive illegally modified vehicles may be fined up to $5,000 or imprisoned up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to six months, or both. The vehicle may also be detained.

Mr Lim.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Unfortunately, despite all the punitive actions to be taken, the problem does not seem to be mitigated. So, my Mountbatten residents are also complaining that vehicles travelling down the East Coast Parkway, because of their modified exhausts, are making a lot of noise. So, either we step up the enforcement or if I can ask the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) whether they would implement any other kind of regulations to deter people from modifying, speeding and creating noise at unearthly hours.

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we not only look at specific issues but we also look at the feedback that we receive. We also carry out joint operations when we receive such information. We will not only look at the area but we also relate them to the different devices as well as information that each agency would have. So, we will continue to look into the specific area that the Member has shared and see how we can address the issue.

Nevertheless, what is key is that we continue to monitor the situation in such issues that have been raised in certain areas. So, coming from the TP side, we work very closely with the ground and, if need be, we will also work with the community in the area.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I thank the Minister of State. May I ask if there is a guideline on the acceptable noise level between a modified vehicle and a sports car?

Indeed, there are guidelines and, in fact, if you look at it, over the years, especially starting from this year, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has taken on a more stringent approach. So, you can see that things are more stringent and tighter today. What is key is that we need to work together with the community as well as the whole-of-Government agencies. This is something that we have been doing. There may be cases here and there, but we will look at them and address the issues together with the community and the agencies.

16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry considers there to be sufficient manpower at the Child Protection Service (CPS); and (b) whether there are plans to increase the number of CPS officers.

Sir, the number of Child Protection Officers (CPOs) managing cases has increased over the years, in line with the increase in cases managed by the Child Protective Service (CPS). CPS is in the process of hiring more CPOs to meet evolving needs.

Mr Ng.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very short reply. I understand the caseload currently is at an average of 40 cases for each CPO, which is quite a lot, considering there are really difficult cases. So, could I ask whether Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has an ideal number of cases for the caseload of a CPO?

Secondly, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that they are planning to increase the numbers. Could I check what the target number of CPOs is?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I appreciate and share the Member's concern.

I trust the Member would agree with me that, actually, the situation is a function of several factors, one of which is the number of CPOs retiring or leaving service prematurely; two, our ability to recruit more CPOs; and three, there is a lag in time due to the need for professional and proper training for our CPOs.

The challenges and complexities that our CPOs face in their daily work, I think that I do not have to say more and the nerve that the CPO actually needs to exhibit just to discharge his or her duty, I believe many Members of the House, members of the public and the Member Mr Louis Ng himself are able to appreciate. So, it is definitely not a job for the faint-hearted and it is not a job that all that many would readily take on, given the high level of dedication and a strong sense of mission that one needs to really show as a CPO.

So, we also do not want to just loosen our requirements just to make sure that we can make up the numbers because we want to enforce a higher standard so that our children and our families are properly protected.

So, I hope the Member does not misconstrue the situation as the Ministry being reticent to act. Quite the contrary; we are aware of the situation. We salute our CPOs, they are doing good work and we want to support them so that they have every chance to do their work well.

But given the compendium of the three factors that we are talking about, we are trying to ramp up recruitment and, at the same time, retain our officers. So, I am afraid I cannot commit to a very firm and hard target for the Member.

Mr Louis Ng. A short supplementary question, please.

A short supplementary question but that was a much longer reply though.

Again, I think there has to be some arbitrary number as to how many cases a CPO can take. This is actually a much larger number of caseload than for a social worker, for example. So, I hope we can set some benchmark in terms of the number of cases an officer can take and also have some target numbers in terms of the number of officers we need.

I can agree that 40 is perhaps a tad high. We are trying to go below 40. But for us to commit to a firm number is probably going to be quite hard because of the complexity and the different challenges faced in each case. So, how do you define 40 cases or 38 cases? And what do 38 cases comprise, if 38 is the magic number? Is it made up of 32 complex and six easy cases? Is it going to be six complex and 32 easy cases? It is not going to be a hard number that we can reach.

So, I hope the Member can see where I am coming from. I also think that 40 is a little bit too high. We are trying to bring that number for the caseload down, but I do not think we can arrive at a magic number.

17 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current allocation of resources for the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to process complaints; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to ensure that SMC receives sufficient resources to facilitate the timely investigation and expeditious resolution of complaint cases.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) depends on both its own manpower resources as well as an external volunteer pool, such as doctors and lawyers, to support the handling of various complaints and discipline cases. SMC has expanded its resources over the past few years to better manage their workload.

Equally important is to have processes that are streamlined and efficient. The amendments to the Medical Registration Act in July 2022, resulting in the introduction of Inquiry Committees and the ability for SMC to tap on a wider pool of chairmen for complaints-related committees, has helped improve the efficiency of SMC. SMC has also enhanced training for committee and tribunal members and worked with the Academy of Medicine Singapore and the College of Family Physicians Singapore to expedite the processing and completion of expert reports. These efforts have resulted in improvements where 70% of the complaints lodged in 2022 were concluded within the year, compared to the 23% in 2018.

The Ministry of Health will continue to work with SMC to facilitate the timely conclusion of complaint cases.

Mr Yip Hong Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have a very short supplementary question.

Besides increasing the resources to deal with resolution of complaint cases, will the Ministry also consider enhancing the policies and processes to weed out baseless or frivolous complaints which contribute to congestion within the system and this includes perhaps implementing penalties for individuals who file these cases?

I thank Mr Yip for his supplementary question.

We do have some processes in place. If the Member would like specific details about the management of the complaints process and the outcomes, I suggest he files a separate Parliamentary Question. This one was about resource allocation.

But if I could just take him through the thinking and framework that we have for the SMC's disciplinary process; it is not a single process. There is not a single committee. I say this because it depends on how you define "baseless".

The reason for a complaint is that the complainant, the family or the patient has a concern. There may be an issue of communication or the care that is delivered. So, there needs to be some investigation and some processes to ascertain the facts, whether or not there are lessons to be learnt or actions taken. So, we have Inquiry Committees, Complaints Committees and the Disciplinary Tribunal. We also have the processes that potentially could go up to the High Court.

So, where you then define "baseless", I think it is not necessarily particularly useful because what is important is that, with the concern, the investigation has proceeded and the facts are established, and then the appropriate action is taken.

I think the Member has a separate point, which is whether or not there should be action taken to prevent frivolous complaints. I think the main thing that we would need to have is a clear sense of responsibility among the care teams to engage with the families and the patients to explain the processes for their care so that, when there is a misunderstanding, this can be dealt with long before a formal complaints process is engaged with.

That is the starting position that we have around this issue. But we are happy to take in suggestions and optimise our processes further.

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

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

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

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

Sir, the Moneylenders Act (MLA) regulates the licensed moneylending industry to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting borrowers and facilitating efficient and effective business processes.

The MLA was last amended in 2018, in part to introduce a designated credit bureau known as the Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB). With this, we made it mandatory for licensed moneylenders to submit borrower information to the MLCB and to obtain a credit report of the loan applicant before granting a loan. Licensed moneylenders must also update the MLCB whenever borrowers repay their loans. The 2018 amendments have helped to professionalise the moneylending industry.

To ensure we keep up with changes in our operating environment, the Registry of Moneylenders continues to engage the industry regularly to obtain feedback and identify areas for improvement.

Today’s Bill proposes amendments that arose from these engagements and are part of the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw) ongoing efforts to enhance the licensed moneylending industry.

This Bill seeks to do three main things: first, improve data sharing and usage policies; second, enhance MLCB’s functions through the sharing and use of data maintained by the MLCB; and third, facilitate digitalisation in the licensed moneylending industry. The Bill also contains technical amendments to reduce ambiguity and increase operational efficiency for licensed moneylenders.

Let me now elaborate on the key amendments in this Bill.

First, the Bill introduces amendments to improve data sharing and usage policies.

Currently, the MLA restricts the purposes for which data can be shared. For example, the Registrar is only able to share data with other public agencies for policy formulation or review and not for other purposes, such as improving operational processes.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Clause 26 of the Bill introduces new provisions to align the licensed moneylending data sharing framework with the whole-of-Government data sharing approach. Moving forward, the Registrar will be able to share data in accordance with and to the extent permitted by a data sharing direction given to the Registrar under the Public Sector (Governance) Act (PSGA).

The PSGA contains the necessary safeguards to protect information that is shared. These safeguards include provisions that prevent unauthorised disclosure or improper use of the information shared and unauthorised re-identification of anonymised information.

The MLA also limits whom licensed moneylenders can share data with. For example, other than the MLCB, licensed moneylenders are currently unable to share their borrowers’ credit application and repayment information with other credit bureaux offering credit-related information. This has hampered comprehensive credit checks on borrowers.

To illustrate this point, let us consider the situation when a borrower approaches a licensed moneylender for a loan. The latter would want to check on the borrower’s credit worthiness including his credit history.

To do so, the licensed moneylender’s only recourse now is to purchase credit reports from the MLCB, which do not provide a complete picture of a borrower’s credit history. The licensed moneylender is also unable to approach other non-designated credit bureaux to purchase credit reports on the borrower, as he is not allowed to disclose the borrower’s ID number. This may enable over-borrowing by individuals who choose to withhold or inaccurately declare their credit information.

Hence, clause 16 introduces amendments to allow licensed moneylenders to disclose borrower information to more third parties, such as a prescribed list of credit bureaux. These credit bureaux will then be able to provide additional information on the borrower’s credit worthiness and indebtedness, leading to more informed and responsible lending practices.

In addition, licensed moneylenders will be able to share borrower information with any prescribed person for purposes related to the welfare and protection of applicants, borrowers and sureties. Licensed moneylenders will also be allowed to share borrower information with third parties engaged to provide IT support or to recover debts. This ensures the smooth delivery of business operations.

To safeguard information of loan applicants and borrowers, MinLaw will exercise prudence when prescribing the list of organisations that licensed moneylenders can share borrower information with, by taking into consideration whether the organisation has the necessary data protection and security measures that safeguard borrowers’ information.

The extent of the borrower information that can be shared will be limited to what is necessary. For example, in the case of purchasing a credit report from a prescribed credit bureau, the disclosure of the identification number of the loan applicant will be necessary.

The Bill will also enable licensed moneylenders to obtain records from public agencies to verify the accuracy of information submitted by loan applicants.

To ensure the security and integrity of borrower information, clause 17 introduces amendments to enhance security arrangements that licensed moneylenders must undertake to safeguard information in their possession or under their control which they have obtained or received under or for the purposes of the MLA, such as preventing unauthorised access to or use of the information.

Second, the Bill enhances the MLCB’s functions beyond just producing credit information reports and serving as a repository of data.

While the MLCB was originally launched to facilitate better tracking and monitoring of unsecured loans issued by licensed moneylenders, data held by the MLCB can be better utilised to benefit both borrowers and licensed moneylenders. For example, the Bill will allow the MLCB to provide credit reports of loan sureties to licensed moneylenders during loan applications.

To illustrate, consider a case where a loan applicant applies for a loan from a licensed moneylender and where the surety has outstanding loans with other licensed moneylenders. Currently, the MLCB is unable to provide the surety’s credit report for the licensed moneylender to independently verify the surety’s debt obligations with other licensed moneylenders. The licensed moneylender would thus be unable to make a complete assessment of the surety’s credit worthiness. With this amendment, licensed moneylenders will be able to conduct more comprehensive credit checks before granting a loan, thereby helping them manage their credit risk.

Next, clause 20 introduces a new section 74A in the MLA to allow the MLCB to produce business reports for licensed moneylenders. These business reports will assist licensed moneylenders in the development and improvement of their business strategies or practices, thereby raising industry standards.

If a credit report, business report or loan information report is delivered in error, clause 23 gives the Registrar the ability to direct these recipients to dispose of these reports within a specified time frame. Failure to comply would be an offence.

Third, the Bill facilitates digitalisation in the industry.

Clause 8 of the Bill allows licensed moneylenders to provide borrowers with statements of account through modes of communication other than mail and email. Licensed moneylenders can instead, for example, use their own app, website or business WhatsApp accounts, thereby increasing business efficiency. As a safeguard, both the licensed moneylender and the borrower must agree in writing on these new modes of communication.

The last area of the Bill deals with miscellaneous amendments that update and standardise provisions in the MLA.

To prevent miscommunication between the borrower and the licensed moneylender, clause 7 mandates that the rate of interest charged stated in any advertising or marketing material, be stated as a percentage per annum, month or other period that the licensed moneylender charges for offering loans. The Bill also makes it an offence for licensed moneylenders to demand payment from borrowers of sums other than the fees permitted or sums exceeding such fees.

To ensure consistency in business practices, the Bill extends the deadlines for licensed moneylenders and the MLCB to notify the Registrar of certain events from seven days to seven business days.

The Bill also imposes record-keeping obligations on licensed moneylenders to start keeping loan application forms and copies of supporting documents from the date the loan application form or supporting document is received. Similarly, licensed moneylenders must start keeping the note of contract from the date they issue it.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, over the past decade, the Government’s regulatory reforms have raised industry standards and provided better protection for borrowers. The amendments proposed in this Bill seek to do the same.

In summary, this Bill will allow data to be used in meaningful ways that are aligned with the whole-of-Government standards and will facilitate better business practices by licensed moneylenders. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to call for the better protection of all parties – moneylenders, borrowers and their sureties. We need to strengthen our system to boost our protection of licensed moneylenders and ensure that there is an even playing field for them within a healthy business environment and better risk management while holding them up to higher standards.

It is also important to protect borrowers and sureties to help them better manage their loan exposures. While they may have access to licensed moneylending services in a fair and equitable way, their personal data, histories and backgrounds should not be used unfairly against them.

Would the Ministry share with the House the regulatory and enforcement frameworks to safeguard their data and to limit the usage of their personal information for only approved purposes? What are the safeguards that MinLaw has put in place to ensure that the prescribed credit bureaus will keep borrowers' information secure and confidential?

I would also like to ask under what circumstances would borrowers' information be shared with other public agencies?

Next, I have some concerns about the proposed amendment to permit a licensed moneylender to request from the credit bureau a credit report on a surety without having to obtain the surety's consent.

While I am generally supportive of this measure, there may be instances where persons who have agreed to become sureties are not aware that their credit reports can be accessed by licensed moneylenders.

Would the Ministry consider building in a process to ensure that this is made known and explained to them before they agree to be sureties for the loan applicants? Can a surety object to a licensed moneylender retrieving his or her credit report?

Additionally, for cases where applicants have access to a free copy of their credit reports when applying for a credit line, could this be provided to sureties as well? Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I have some concerns about the proposed amendment to permit a licensed moneylender to request from the credit bureau a credit report on a surety without having to obtain the surety's consent. While I am generally supportive of this measure, there may be instances where persons who have agreed to become sureties are not aware that their credit reports can be accessed by licensed moneylenders.

Would the Ministry consider building in a process to ensure that this is made known and explained to them before they agree to be sureties for the loan applicants? Can a surety object to a licensed moneylender retrieving his or her credit report? Additionally, for cases where applicants have access to a free copy of their credit reports when applying for a credit line, could this be provided to sureties as well?

(In English): Finally, I hope that the Ministry would continue to work with the various stakeholders to build up the professionalism of this sector. The professional standards can be raised, for example, for the engagement of clients and methods of loan recovery without resorting to threatening or unsavoury practices. Licensees can benefit from more support from the Ministry for the training of their staff.

Would the Ministry also share about the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) measures for this sector? I support the Bill.

Mr Neil Parekh.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.

Before us today is the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill. First of all, I would like to point out the unique role moneylenders play in our economy. Outside of not meeting the strict criteria of traditional banks, people often seek moneylenders for faster loan approval rates and for the ease of getting short-term urgent loans.

Also, the presence of licensed moneylenders helps us regulate and reduce the influence of unlicensed moneylenders, who are often predatory in their behavior.

I believe tightening our laws for the betterment of society is an ongoing commitment and these amendments serve to strengthen the role and work of licensed moneylenders. For a small but a very competitive economy like ours, these amendments help to further enhance Singapore's standing as a financial centre.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the amendments to the Moneylenders Act will impact both businesses and borrowers. There are also some potential challenges which the concerned professionals will have to face. Allow me to elaborate on these issues.

I would, first, like to address the impact of this Bill on businesses.

Those business owners engaged in moneylending activities will face both challenges and opportunities. Borrowing could potentially be made easier as the Bill will bring changes to the credit reporting process, which will allow moneylenders to request credit reports on sureties without explicit consent, potentially streamlining the loan approval process. Borrowers with favourable credit histories may benefit from potentially expedited loan approval processes as moneylenders can assess creditworthiness more efficiently.

These amendments also enhance transparency and foster an environment where borrowers can expect fair and accountable lending practices. This may lead to quicker assessments of borrowers' creditworthiness. It also contributes to a more regulated and accountable financial ecosystem. Also, with the Expanded Borrower Information Disclosure in clause 16, licensees will have the ability to request and disclose borrower information for specific purposes, which might provide moneylenders with more comprehensive insights, potentially allowing for more informed lending decisions.

However, on the flipside, borrowing could be made harder as the enhanced security measures will require increased resources for compliance with the new regulations.

As credit reporting takes centre stage, it expands the functions of designated credit bureaus through clause 12, which aims to provide more information for assessing creditworthiness through the collection, use and disclosure of borrower information and data. While this could be beneficial, it may also introduce additional steps in the lending process. Borrowers, especially those seeking loans with sureties, will be directly affected.

These amendments also introduce new requirements for information submission to designated credit businesses and empower moneylenders to request credit reports on sureties without explicit consent. These new requirements could impact the loan application and approval process. For example, specifically for small and medium enterprises already grappling with higher operational and labour costs, these new requirements introduced by the Bill may perhaps be a significant hurdle.

This Bill also introduces clauses on digital statements and record-keeping. While these options could enhance convenience, there might be challenges for borrowers if there is an eventual full transition to digital methods and could deter less tech-savvy borrowers.

The designated credit bureaus will see expanded functions, including the collection, use and disclosure of borrower information. Will this expanded authority of the designated credit bureaus and data sharing with public sector agencies raise privacy concerns among borrowers and potentially deter borrowing? Balancing the greater need for information sharing with protecting borrower privacy becomes a delicate challenge.

Along these lines, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have the following clarifications for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

Empowering the Registrar to share borrower or loan information with public sector agencies raises questions about the safeguards in place to protect individuals' privacy. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary please clarify on the criteria for information sharing, data security measures and oversight mechanisms, especially in light of recent information leaks?

The amendments also empower moneylenders to request credit reports on sureties without explicit consent. I would also request clarification on the conditions and limitations surrounding this provision.

In the amendment, there is also the introduction of a new criminal offence for wrongful demands of payment. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary please explain what constitutes a "wrongful demand" and the factors considered when determining this?

In summary, I believe the Moneylenders Bill and the amendments protect consumers and maintain financial stability. Notwithstanding my request for some clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, this Bill will allow licensed moneylenders access to relevant credit information before deciding to grant a loan. The Bill will also require licensed moneylenders to take additional steps to protect information and records kept.

These amendments will support the MLCB's work in encouraging financially prudent borrowing. I have three points of clarification.

My first clarification is on a licensee's discretion to obtain a credit report on a surety of the application before deciding whether to grant a loan. The new section 66A(4) permits but does not require a licensee to obtain a credit report on a surety. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if any guidance will be provided to a licensee on situations where a licensee is recommended to obtain a credit report on a surety? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how it will ensure that licensees do not request credit reports for purposes other than to assess the creditworthiness of a surety?

I understand licensees face a fine or imprisonment for misrepresenting the purpose of a credit pull. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain how such misrepresentations will be detected and policed? After all, when licensees make credit pulls, they are not obligated to inform those targeted about it.

My second clarification is on providing notice to the surety if the surety's information is submitted to MLCB or other parties. There is a requirement under section 66(4)(b) that the licensee must inform the applicant in writing that certain information from the applicant will be submitted to MLCB to obtain a credit report. The licensee must also inform the applicant that the information may be disclosed to other parties.

However, section 66A(7) provides that a licensee is not required to seek the surety's consent before requesting a credit report on them. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify why a licensee must inform an applicant that it is submitting the applicant's information to MLCB to obtain a credit report and that the information may be disclosed to other parties, but it does not have to inform a surety when the surety's information is actually submitted to obtain a credit report?

My third and final clarification is on the safeguards for borrower information disclosed. Under the new section 69(3A), a licensee may disclose borrower information, including information in a credit report to certain third parties. These third parties include an assistant of the licensee to collect debt, a contractor or agent to maintain the information system and any public agency to obtain any public record. Additionally, the licensee can disclose information to MLCB and any prescribed persons for purposes related to the welfare and protection of applicants.

Firstly, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what it considers to be purposes "related to the welfare and protection of applicants"? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also share who the prescribed persons are intended to be?

Secondly, there are requirements on how long a licensee can retain information and on safeguards that a licensee must have to protect information. A licensee must dispose of a credit report five years after the date the loan is fully repaid or the contract is terminated. If the loan is not granted, the credit report must be disposed of within one business day that MLCB is informed of the reasons for declining the loan.

The licensee is also required to make reasonable security arrangements to protect the information, including information in a credit report. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how these safeguards are extended to information provided to other third parties, such as assistants, contractors or agents? What steps will a licensee have to take to ensure that the information provided to third parties is kept secured, not used for other purposes and properly disposed of? Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill.

Members also made comments and suggestions on: (a) usage and protection of borrowers' confidential data; (b) obtaining credit reports in respect of sureties; (c) the offence of a wrongful demand of payment; and (d) Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) measures for the licensed moneylending sector.

Let me address each group of issues in turn.

First, I deal with the usage and protection of borrowers' confidential data. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Neil Parekh asked about the circumstances under which borrowers' information would be shared with other public agencies and the safeguards in place to protect such information.

Whilst I mentioned the circumstances and safeguards in my opening speech, I would like to highlight that the proposed amendments are aligned with what is practised across the Government as set out in the Public Sector (Governance) Act.

The Public Service has in place a data-sharing framework and is governed by Instruction Manuals, which amongst other things, oblige public agencies to safeguard data against security threat, protect personal data and access information only on a need-to-know basis. These data sharing provisions will enable better policy analysis, planning and formulation and better delivery of services.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng asked about the safeguards to ensure that the prescribed credit bureaus and other third parties will keep borrowers' information secure and confidential.

The prescribed credit bureaus and other third parties are subject to the obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act. For example, they must protect the data in their possession by making reasonable security arrangements to prevent unauthorised access, use or disclosure. Their ability to do so is something we will consider carefully when deciding whether to prescribe particular credit bureaus to be able to receive borrower information.

On a related matter, Mr Louis Ng referred to the proposed amendments for licensees to disclose information to any prescribed person for purposes related to the welfare and protection of applicants, and sought clarification on what these purposes are and who the prescribed persons are intended to be.

For a start, we intend to prescribe social service agencies (SSAs) which have been assisting borrowers in negotiating debt consolidation loans or restructuring plans with licensed moneylenders. The disclosure of loan information to such SSAs is essential for effective negotiation and should ultimately benefit the borrower.

More broadly, in deciding whether any person, organisation or otherwise should be permitted access to the confidential information, MinLaw will, among other matters, assess and consider the need for the possible disclosure and consequential benefits.

Next, I turn to the obtaining of credit reports on sureties.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Neil Parekh sought clarification regarding situations where a licensee is recommended to obtain a credit report on a surety. Mr Louis Ng also asked how MinLaw will detect and ensure that licensees do not request credit reports for purposes other than to assess the creditworthiness of a surety.

Licensed moneylenders can only obtain a credit report of a loan applicant or a surety when a loan application is received. It is a risk management call and a business decision for a licensee whether it requires a surety's credit report for its creditworthiness assessment.

The Registry of Moneylenders conducts regular inspections and investigates breaches of the Moneylenders Act. This will help ensure that credit reports are only obtained for proper purposes.

Members of the public can also lodge a report on potential infringements with the Registry of Moneylenders.

Additionally, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira asked about the notice provided to a surety that his or her information will be submitted for the purpose of obtaining the credit report. Ms Pereira also asked whether a surety may object to a licensed moneylender retrieving his or her credit report.

As I mentioned earlier, the credit report can only be obtained when a loan application is made. In other words, the applicant and surety would be fully aware that the licensed moneylender would conduct due diligence to assess the creditworthiness of both the applicant and the surety.

In the event a surety objects to the retrieval of his or her credit report, the licensed moneylender may make an alternate lending decision to manage its risk accordingly.

I thank Ms Pereira for her suggestion for sureties to be given a free copy of their credit report. We will consider this.

Next, in terms of a new offence being introduced, Mr Parekh sought clarification on what constitutes a licensee making "wrongful demand of payment" from a borrower. This amendment clarifies that it is an offence if a licensed moneylender, without reasonable excuse, demands payment from a borrower of a sum that is either not permitted or which exceeds the permitted amounts. Licensees found to have committed this offence can be fined up to $20,000 or imprisoned up to six months, or both.

Finally, Ms Pereira asked about the AML/CFT measures for the licensed moneylending sector. The AML/CFT measures for licensed moneylenders are mainly set out in the Moneylenders (Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism) Rules. These rules are aligned with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force.

In the conduct of its business, a licensed moneylender must have measures in place to assess the risk of, detect and prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. Measures include the screening of persons and the conduct of customer due diligence.

I would like to conclude by thanking the Members once again for their support of the Bill and for their invaluable comments and suggestions.

The proposed amendments to the Act will allow data to be used in meaningful ways that are aligned with the whole-of-Government standards and will facilitate better business practices by licensed moneylenders.

MinLaw will continue to monitor and improve the standards of the licensed moneylending industry while ensuring that borrowers are adequately protected.

Any clarifications? None.

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

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

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam.] (proc text)]

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

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.33 pm until 5.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.

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

Sir, the Bill before the House amends the Constitution to create frameworks for the President and Ministers to take on international appointments in their private capacities if the national interest so requires.

Let me first set out the background relating to the amendments for the President.

Under the Constitution, the President is the Head of State. As the Head of State, the President performs a vital symbolic and unifying role. He symbolises our sovereignty at home and abroad, and is an important part of our international diplomacy.

In performing these roles, Presidents have, from time to time, taken on additional appointments in their official capacities. This is done on the advice and with the support of the Cabinet.

For example, domestically, Presidents have served as university chancellors and patrons of charitable or other organisations, lending the prestige of the highest office of the land to worthy causes that unify Singaporeans.

Internationally, Presidents can take on appointments in their official capacity in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest. For example, Dr Tony Tan was inducted as a member of the Honorary Senate of the Foundation Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in 2012 during his tenure as President.

Such appointments reflect the high international standing of the individuals who have served as our President.

In deciding whether to advise the President to take on an appointment in his official capacity, Cabinet applies the following principles:

domestic appointments must be in furtherance of the President’s symbolic and unifying role;

international appointments must be in furtherance of Singapore’s national interest;

the President’s public life must be carried out in a manner that is compatible with his status and role as the Head of State – he is apolitical and cannot become involved in issues or events that might generate political controversy;

in addition, the appointment must not undermine or be incompatible with the President’s discretionary functions under the Constitution, including his custodial functions as the Elected President;

the appointment must not contravene Article 19A(1) of the Constitution, which among other things, prohibits the President from being actively engaged in commercial enterprises.

The Cabinet will continue to apply these principles in deciding whether to advise and support the President to take on domestic and international appointments in his official capacity.

Today, President Tharman is the Chancellor of the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, and patron of numerous organisations like the Singapore Red Cross, Singapore International Foundation, Philanthropy Asia Alliance and the Singapore University of Social Sciences.

President Tharman is also currently holding the following international positions in his official capacity as President, with the advice and support of the Cabinet, and these are:

One, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty (G30). This oversees the governance and directions of the G30, which is a grouping of eminent thought leaders in economic policymaking, academia and the financial industry.

Two, Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). This is an advisory board. It helps shape the strategic directions of the WEF without directly overseeing the running of the organisation.

Three, Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW). This is an independent Commission that was convened to examine and make recommendations to the United Nations (UN) and other international forums on how to improve the way societies govern, use and value water for the common good.

Four, Co-chair of the United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR) Advisory Board. This provides intellectual guidance and advice on the overall vision, direction and messages of the UN HDR.

These are appointments that President Tharman held when he was Senior Minister and before assuming his current office. Cabinet has considered the matter and agreed that it is in the national interest for him to continue holding these appointments as President currently in his official capacity.

And for the information of the House, the President does not receive any remuneration or other benefits from these appointments.

The Government’s original intention was for President Tharman to continue to serve in these international appointments in his official capacity. But after reviewing the matter carefully, we were advised by the Attorney-General that this arrangement was not ideal. Let me explain why this is so.

The four international bodies mentioned earlier want their distinguished appointees to carry on with their official roles, and to bring with them their official status and reputations, such as President Tharman’s former status as Senior Minister and now as Head of State. These international organisations want their distinguished appointees to carry with them their official statuses, but they also want their appointees to contribute independently to achieve the aims of the respective bodies.

To illustrate, the WEF Board of Trustees includes the deputy prime minister of Canada, the heads of the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, and leaders of major private organisations. But these Trustees are expected to give their views independent of the governments or organisations they head, so as to shape the strategic directions of the WEF in keeping with its goals of serving the interests of the global community.

Similarly, the G30’s Board of Trustees includes current and former heads of central banks around the world, but they are expected to contribute independently of these central banks. Likewise, the UNHDR Advisory Board and the GCEW expect their members to contribute independently, in the global interest.

If the President were to serve in these international bodies purely in his official capacity, then he would be limited to representing the official Singapore position in everything he says. That would not be in keeping with the requirements of these organisations, nor would it be in the interest of Singapore for our President to be so limited, as it restricts our ability to shape global conversations and initiatives.

From Singapore’s perspective, there is value to have the President represented on these international bodies. It enables us to be plugged into global conversations and to understand and help shape the thinking that takes place in these important and influential international bodies. But for this to happen, the President must be able to function credibly in these international bodies, by lending his expertise to advance the agenda on broader issues of concern to these organisations.

So, we are presented with a novel issue: should the President now be allowed to contribute independently in his private capacity when he takes on these international appointments? That is what this issue is about.

Cabinet considered this carefully and we concluded that the President should be allowed to do so to contribute to these international appointments in his independent and private capacity as this is beneficial for Singapore. These are reputable international bodies with global reach, and with eminent persons serving on their respective boards. The President’s continued involvement in these organisations is in Singapore’s national interest.

To be clear, when we say that the President serves in his “private capacity”, it does not mean that he is doing this outside of his work duties. These international appointments are core to the President’s international diplomacy role. As Head of State, they are, in fact, how we project Singapore’s influence and strengthen our networks in the world. But allowing the President to serve in his private capacity allows him to act independently in achieving the aims of the international bodies, subject, of course, to the necessary safeguards of our national interest.

Such an arrangement would then enable the President to take on appointments that help to expand Singapore’s influence and network, while acting independently on these international bodies.

The Attorney-General, however, advised that such an arrangement is currently not clearly provided for by the Constitution. And that is why constitutional amendments are needed to enable the President to take on roles where he acts independently in his private capacity.

The provisions in this amendment Bill will put in place a proper framework under which these and future appointments are governed. The framework would not just apply to this President and this Government, but also to future Presidents and future Governments.

In developing the framework, Cabinet had regard to the following broad considerations.

One, the framework would only apply to appointments in international organisations. It would not apply in the domestic context. In the domestic context, the current position will continue to apply, and the President will not have an independent role outside of the specific discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution.

Two, any international appointment for the President to act in his private capacity must be justified by the national interest. Importantly, our own policy matters must remain the responsibility and prerogative of the Cabinet. Any appointment must therefore be supported by the Cabinet in the first place. If need be, Cabinet must be able to intervene to advise the President on how he acts in these appointments.

Three, at the same time, the President should have a say in deciding whether to take on such appointments. He should be able to decline such appointments if, for example, he considers them to be incompatible with his constitutional functions. And any appointment must be on the public record, in the interests of transparency and accountability.

Sir, these are the considerations behind the new Article 22Q. Article 22Q(1) will enable current and future Presidents to accept international appointments in their private capacities, subject to three conditions.

First, the President cannot contravene the disabilities imposed by Article 19A(1), which include a prohibition on active engagement in commercial enterprises.

Second, the Cabinet must assess and advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept the appointment. In making this assessment, Cabinet would be guided by similar principles as those I set out earlier.

Third, the President, acting in his discretion, must concur with the advice of the Cabinet.

The President cannot accept an international appointment in his private capacity outside of the framework set out in this Article.

Article 22Q(2) will enable the Cabinet to advise the President on his execution of such a role so that it is in our national interest, including ensuring that it does not undermine the President’s status as constitutional Head of State or contradict the President’s powers under the Constitution. The President must act in accordance with any such advice.

As a general rule, the Cabinet will advise the President against commenting on domestic politics, laws and policies; making any commitments on behalf of the Government or Singapore, whether formally or informally; and retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment. Subject to any advice by the Cabinet, the President may act independently in his private capacity.

Article 22Q(3) goes on to require the President to relinquish an international appointment if so advised by the Cabinet.

And finally, Article 22Q(4) requires the acceptance or the relinquishment of an international appointment to be published in the Gazette. This Gazette notice will include the term dates of the appointment.

Conceptually, the new Article 22Q will be a specific and defined extension of the President’s international role as the Head of State. It is not part of the Elected President’s custodial powers. The President is therefore not required to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers and is not subject to any time limit in deciding whether to take up an international appointment under the Article.

I should also mention that, out of an abundance of caution, we have backdated the new Article 22Q to 14 September, when President Tharman assumed office. But, in fact, we do not need this backdating. Because, as I mentioned earlier, President Tharman currently holds his appointments in an official capacity, on the advice and support of the Cabinet, as provided for in the Constitution.

Should the Bill be passed by Parliament, Cabinet intends to advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to continue in his existing international roles in his private capacity, and this will take effect on a forward-looking basis.

Sir, I move now to the position for Ministers.

Today, Ministers take on external appointments in their official capacity in connection with their responsibilities. For example, when Singapore was a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Prof S Jayakumar, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs then, served as the President of the Council.

The Code of Conduct for Ministers also permits Ministers to take on external appointments in their private capacities if the Prime Minister considers it to be in the national interest and grants permission.

Currently, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean sits on the TotalEnergies’ International Advisory Committee. This appointment was approved by the Prime Minister and was published in the Gazette. Senior Minister Teo donates the honorarium he receives from TotalEnergies to charity.

There are no general legal impediments to Ministers taking on external appointments today. However, as we are putting a legal framework in place for the President to take on international appointments in his private capacity, we will also create a legal framework for Ministers. This is found in the new Article 33A.

The framework is similar to Article 22Q, except that Ministers must obtain the permission of the Prime Minister and are subject to his instructions.

As a general rule, Ministers taking on international appointments in their private capacities will be instructed against breaching collective Cabinet responsibility; against making any commitments on behalf of the Government of Singapore, whether formally or informally; and against retaining any remuneration or benefits in connection with the appointment.

The new Article 33A will supersede the relevant portions of the Ministerial Code, and the Prime Minister intends to give permission to Senior Minister Teo to continue with his TotalEnergies appointment under the new framework.

I should add that the new Article 33A does not apply to the Prime Minister. Previous and current Prime Ministers have not undertaken any such international appointments, and we do not expect future Prime Ministers to do so. Hence, the provision in the new Article 33A only applies to Ministers.

In conclusion, Sir, the Bill provides a principled framework to govern how the President and Ministers take on international appointments in their private capacities, if required by the national interest.

The proposed additions of Articles 22Q and 33A in the Constitution seek to ensure that we safeguard the dignity and status of the roles of the President and Ministers in Singapore, while enabling them to make significant contributions in international bodies and shape global thinking, if these contributions are in the interest of Singapore. In this way, we can make the most of the expertise, experience and personal standing of the individuals we elect to office, so as to advance Singapore’s interests and reinforce our value to the world. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Ms Denise Phua.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Constitution to enable Singapore's President and Cabinet Ministers to assume roles in foreign and international organisations in their private capacity, when it serves the national interest. I will now present three compelling reasons to support this Bill, and then raise four common concerns, to which I seek the Deputy Prime Minister's response.

Three reasons to support the Bill: one, enhanced international influence. First, granting the President and Cabinet Ministers the opportunity to take on external roles, albeit in their personal and private capacity, can boost Singapore's visibility and status internationally.

Singapore, as a small nation state, is often recognised for its effective governance and economic and social development. Our leaders can offer essential insights for achieving progress and stability, beneficial to global policy-thinking and global policy-making.

Foreign and international organisations present an excellent platform for small nation states, like Singapore, to actively participate in shaping global policies, which may in turn affect Singapore positively. And this was what the Deputy Prime Minister said about plugging into global conversations.

However, not every international organisation is formal or has the resources to appoint leaders in their official state roles. Therefore, our collective support for our senior leaders to join these organisations, when it aligns with national interests, is crucial and strategic.

For example, President Tharman's significant contributions to entities, such as the IMF, the G20 Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance, the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) and so on, have positively impacted our nation's reputation. President Tharman's continued involvement will offer valuable perspectives on global policymaking, which is especially beneficial for Singapore during these challenging economic and geopolitical times.

During the last presidential election, there was widespread opinion that it would be a loss if Mr Tharman's ascent to the presidency hindered his international contributions. But President Tharman is not the only one whose insights are valued globally. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, for example, has also frequently represented Singapore globally, enhancing our country's visibility, influence and reputation on the world stage. And so have other public office holders; we heard about Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, for instance.

Therefore, supporting this Bill is strategic and will offer Singapore the opportunity to punch above its weight, influencing global thinking and policymaking.

The second reason for supporting this Bill is the establishment of a framework, the creation of a formal framework, to prevent potential abuse. In the case of the President, clause 2 in Article 22Q of the Bill spells out the conditions under which the President can accept and hold office in a foreign or international organisation, in his private capacity. The Cabinet must advise the President that the appointment is in Singapore's national interest; and also against saying or doing anything against Singapore, in performing that role.

Clause 3 similarly inserts provisions to apply the same framework to Ministers and empowers the Prime Minister to approve such appointments. The new provisions of both the clauses create a formal framework to ensure greater transparency, accountability and governance when the President and Cabinet Ministers perform non-local roles in their private capacities. And these are much welcomed steps.

Third, this Bill encourages a shift in mindset from individual success to significance for our senior public leaders and nation alike.

Already, the Government has an existing practice of encouraging senior public servants to engage in non-commercial roles in their private capacity, fostering civic engagement and volunteerism. Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS), for example, a large charity for the intellectually challenged, has Permanent Secretary Augustin Lee as Chairman. Where I volunteer, in the autism charities, Deputy Permanent Secretary Poon Hong Yuen provides invaluable insights on our Boards. There are many others.

So, when senior public office holders, such as Presidents and Ministers, contribute beyond their formal roles, and extend their expertise and experience globally, they too move the needle, from individual success to significance, benefiting wider communities and nations.

I will next touch on four common concerns that are raised when the public, for example, read about this Bill.

One, the first concern relates to the potential impact on the President and Cabinet Ministers' official duties. Some people worry that engaging in international roles in their private capacity may divert their attention from the elected and appointed responsibilities of the President and Ministers.

The Deputy Prime Minister has shared some background to why this is happening and mentioned about international diplomacy in the President's role in such a case, but exactly what is the tipping point when one's overseas engagements are perceived as excessive? Therefore, guidelines from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) will be necessary to strike a suitable balance between the public and private roles of the President and the Ministers.

The second concern is how the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers will determine the potential benefits of these roles to the country. While it is an honour to be invited to key positions in foreign organisations, not all roles may serve Singapore's interests. Therefore, an objective assessment approach should be adopted to weigh the tangible benefits and drawbacks. What is the meaning of "serving national interest"? What are some examples of what might be beneficial or not quite beneficial to the nation? Some clarity in decision-making criteria and assessment weightage would be appreciated from the Deputy Prime Minister.

The third concern is advising the Prime Minister under a similar situation. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about how current and past Prime Ministers do not have roles beyond their official duties in foreign and international organisations. But when such a situation happens, how would we move forward in this?

For example, if the Prime Minister himself is invited to hold office in a foreign or international organisation in a private capacity, what will happen? The Bill currently outlines advice mechanisms for the President and Cabinet Ministers, but lacks clarity regarding the Prime Minister's situation. It will be useful for the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify that.

And lastly, on security administrative support. Although it is stated that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure, it may not be so, in reality. There is, hence, a fourth concern pertaining to the need for at least basic security and administrative support, even as one tries to distinguish between official and private engagements for the President and Cabinet Ministers.

In cases involving national interest spaces like the economy, security, human development and healthcare, the Government's provision of such support should be considered. There will be times when it is essential to help ensure the organised conduct of the businesses, to ensure that the status of the President and Cabinet Ministers are at least retained for the image of Singapore.

Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that the benefits of this Bill outweigh the concerns. Hence, while operational challenges may arise, and notwithstanding my seeking clarification for some of the concerns that I have raised, I am confident that they can be addressed through transparency, accountability and a commitment to serving the public interest. And therefore, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, this constitutional amendment Bill provides for the President and Ministers to accept appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities, if it serves the national interest. The PMO asserts that such appointments can enhance Singapore's international standing and help to advance our national interest.

President Tharman Shanmugaratnam currently holds several international appointments, including Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the G30, Co-chair of the advisory board of the UN Human Development Report (UNHDR), Co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) and a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The Deputy Prime Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he is on all these boards in his official capacity.

Internationally, it is a common practice for political office holders to resign from their private positions before being sworn into office. Recently, Mr David Cameron resigned from various business and charitable positions, including as president of Alzheimer’s Research UK, when he made a comeback to government, saying, "I have one job – to be foreign secretary and work with the prime minister for the UK to be as secure and prosperous as possible in a difficult and dangerous world."

Conversely, there are many examples of former politicians who are now leading high profile international bodies, but only started serving in these organisations after their political tenure in their home countries. Examples include Mr Antonio Guterres, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, who was a former prime minister of Portugal, and Mr Charles Michel, who became the President of the European Council after stepping down as the Belgian prime minister.

The presence of currently serving Senior Public Officials in international organisations has led to controversies in the past. In 2018, the European Union Ombudsman called on the then-European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi to resign from the G30, the same organisation whose Board of Trustees President Tharman is now Chairing. She said, "Mr Draghi's membership of the G30 could give rise to a public perception that the independence of the ECB could be compromised". Adding that, "For the ECB to allow this perception to arise over several years constitutes mal-administration on its part."

The PMO stated that, from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations. Prior to this, did any of our past Presidents assume positions in foreign organisations in their private capacities while they were still in office, or is Mr Tharman the first? Additionally, have there been other invitations extended to the President for positions in foreign and international organisations that he has not yet accepted?

Could the Deputy Prime Minister provide the House a comprehensive list of his external commitments, both present and potential, so that Parliament can ascertain the extent of the President's involvement in these organisations and his expected annual time commitments for these roles?

Prior to his election, Mr Tharman articulated his vision for the presidency, emphasising the need for a different character to the Presidency in Singapore's next phase of development. He underscored the role of the President in checking the governance system, fostering unity and evolving Singapore's norms and culture. During his inauguration, he committed to using his mandate to strengthen multiracialism and enhance respect among communities. His plans include promoting interaction between different communities, ensuring cultural vibrancy and fostering inclusivity through active community participation, civil society and support for the arts and sports.

These are substantial commitments that will demand a significant investment of the President's time and effort. All of us – including the President – have only 24 hours each day. Any time he spends serving private interests will be time taken away from his national duties to his constituents – who are the people of Singapore. Surely, the role of the President is significant enough to merit his undivided attention.

The President also draws a salary of $1.57 million a year. If we include his entertainment allowance, the salaries of his personal staff and other expenses, the total budgeted expenditure of the President's office in the current financial year is over $12 million. This is a substantial amount of taxpayer money. It is only reasonable for Singaporeans to expect that he dedicates all his time and energy in his official capacity to meeting his promises to the people.

The Government may argue that the President serves Singapore by accepting these key positions in international organisations. However, we must note that the proposed Article 22Q specifies that he will act in his “private capacity”, not in the exercise of his functions under the Constitution.

We must more closely examine how these private roles, separate from official duties, genuinely advance Singapore's national interests. How will the Government ensure that the President, when acting in his private capacity, follows the Cabinet's advice about what to say or do in his role, since many of these organisations hold their meetings behind closed doors in foreign countries?

The Deputy Prime Minister said just now that international organisations would want our President to continue in his official role. They also want their appointees to contribute independently. But if the Cabinet can instruct the President what to say or not to say, how is that contributing independently?

Invoking the "national interest" cannot grant the Government unrestricted authority to pursue its every desire. There are varying degrees of national interest. Is there any objective test that the Cabinet will employ to assess the degree of national interest of the President taking up foreign or international roles?

Mr Speaker, I accept that the President may sometimes take up roles in international organisations in his official capacity, in order to enhance Singapore's international standing and advance our national interests. However, Singaporeans justifiably expect him to wholeheartedly dedicate his time and energy to fulfil his national responsibilities. Allowing the President to take up external appointments in his private capacity could detract from his substantial public duties. For this reason, the Workers' Party (WP) will vote against this Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Speaker, Sir, we are certainly feeling proud as a Singaporean when our then-Senior Minister Tharman was invited and appointed to serve at prestigious international organisations. He was appointed to Chair the G20 Eminent Persons Group on Global Financial Governance. He also Chaired the Board of Trustees at the G30 and so on.

The jobs of our President and Ministers, who are also Members of Parliament (MPs) with constituency duties, are demanding. While it may be beneficial for our national interest to have them appointed in foreign and international organisations and champion for Singapore, the concern is whether the demands of these appointments will have a negative impact on their ability to fulfil their local ones.

One of Singapore's greatest challenges is our small pool of top local citizen talent which the Public Service, political and private sectors need to compete for. Perhaps, one of the intents of this Bill is to overcome the constraints.

Will the Government limit the numbers and type of appointments Ministers can take on in their private capacities? We can understand that foreign and international organisations have their reasons for inviting the Ministers or the President. If they should take these on, they might have to let go of other appointments to ensure that they have the time and energy to fulfil their main responsibilities as Ministers and MPs.

How would the Cabinet screen, vet and make recommendations for appropriate invitations to be approved? We must also put in place mechanics to prevent conflict of interest for the President and Ministers with such appointments. I am in full support of the Bill because for Singapore, one of the smallest nations in the world, having our Ministers or President on select, curated international organisations, will allow us to put our views across and have a say in how certain future international rules will be designed. It is easy for the international arena to ignore tiny nations like us. We need to have a presence wherever possible.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, we are debating amendments to the Constitution to create a framework for the President and Ministers to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacity.

This Bill also appears to address, urgently, the circumstances of the President since his inauguration on 14 September 2023. President Tharman is extremely respected by and popular among Singaporeans. He has brought honour to Singapore with his international achievements. Personally, I have great respect for him, and it was my honour to have worked with him briefly in the mid-1980s when I was an Investment Officer at GIC and he was an Economist at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

So, the objections that I will raise in this speech have nothing to do with President Tharman personally or his international appointments specifically. Rather, they arise from this Bill's violation of established legal principles and principles of sound governance, which I will move on now to elaborate on.

Mr Speaker, the first question I like to raise is: are the President's international appointments currently unconstitutional? Currently, under Article 19A of the Constitution, the President is not allowed to hold any other office created or recognised by this Constitution, actively engage in any commercial enterprise, be a member of any political party or be a Member of Parliament.

The Constitution is silent on whether the President can take up foreign or international appointments. But President Tharman has been holding such appointments when he was a Minister, before he was elected as the President. Other Ministers have also held international appointments over the years without question, despite the Constitution also being silent on this matter. The most notable example was Mr Lee Kuan Yew who sat on the JP Morgan International Council while he was Minister Mentor.

So, why is it so pressing to rush through these constitutional amendments now and create this framework for the President and Cabinet Ministers to take up international appointments? Is it simply because no other past President had held international appointments in their private capacity while in office? If so, then the Government should explain why there was no rush to create such a framework when a Minister took up foreign or international appointments for the first time many years ago.

The second question the Government has to clarify is: why is it necessary for these constitutional amendments to be rushed through Parliament and backdated? The Constitution is the bedrock of our nation and any changes to it should be made with prudent consideration, transparency and in the best interest of only the nation.

The constitutional amendments that we are debating today were brought to this House for First Reading less than three weeks ago and Parliament has been recalled today specifically to approve this fait accompli.

Parliament is also being asked to backdate these proposed constitutional amendments to 14 September 2023, the date of President Tharman's inauguration, through clause 1(2) of this Bill. The retrospective amendment of any law should not be taken lightly.

The speed with which these constitutional amendments are being enacted, as well as the fact that they are being backdated, have created unnecessary unease among Singaporeans. A segment of Singaporeans now perceives that the Constitution is being specially amended to enable President Tharman to continue serving in international organisations despite taking up his new office as President of Singapore.

Some other Singaporeans believe that the Government is establishing this framework to control what the President can or cannot say internationally under the new Article 22Q, clause 2. Either way, this has tarnished the elected presidency. Many Singaporeans wonder, if any other person had been elected President, would the Government have enacted these constitutional amendments?

Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes the framework proposed in this Bill by the Government to govern the performance of foreign and international roles by the President and Ministers is not sufficient. It is a universally recognised principle of good governance that situations of conflict of interest should be avoided as much as possible, in order to maintain the integrity of public institutions. While such situations cannot be totally eliminated, the Constitution should certainly not be amended to enable such situations to arise.

The public/private capacity divide itself is controversial. If the President or Minister is truly acting in his private capacity, why then would the national interest be involved? It is not easy, or might even be impossible, to ensure that one capacity does not lead to advantage in the other.

If the Constitution can be amended to enable the President and Ministers to take up foreign or international appointments of an executive nature, as opposed to mere ceremonial roles, an important question would arise – where does the buck stop? What more is permissible or impermissible or what principles or guidelines would such decisions be based on?

Therefore, PSP is of the view that it is better for the President and Ministers to devote themselves entirely to their public offices in Singapore.

As for these other international or foreign appointments, PSP is confident that there are other Singaporean talents suited for them.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we need a more complete explanation from the Government as to why it has rushed to pass this Constitutional amendment and backdate them to President Tharman's inauguration. If President Tharman's foreign and international appointments are not unconstitutional, then it is perplexing why the amendments need to be backdated or even made at all, given that Cabinet Ministers have taken up such appointments over the years without such a framework and without any question of their legality and constitutionality.

If there is a possibility that President Tharman's foreign and international appointments are unconstitutional, then what this House is doing today creates a worrying precedent. This House is being asked to change the highest law in the land and backdate the change to enable a specific individual to remain within legal boundaries.

On the other hand, some Singaporeans believe that the Government has pushed through these amendments to strengthen its control over what the President says and does abroad.

From the feedback we have gathered, there is confusion on the ground and Singaporeans need a full explanation from the Government. Mr Speaker, the PSP does not support the Bill. For country, for people.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, our Parliament has to decide today whether to allow the Government’s amendment of the Constitution to create a framework for the President and Ministers to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacities.

Under the proposed Article 22Q which is being introduced by this amendment Bill, the President may accept and hold an office in a foreign and international organisation in his private capacity if, and only if, the President is not disabled by Article 19A(1) from performing the functions of that office; the Cabinet advises the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept and hold that office; and the President, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Cabinet.

The PMO said in a statement that, from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations, and I quote: "Accepting such positions can enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest..."

It has already been reported in The Straits Times that if the Bill is passed, it would allow President Tharman to continue with his roles in the WEF and G30. We are told that President Tharman currently holds several international appointments, including being chairman of the Board of Trustees of the G30, a member of the WEF’s Board of Trustees, Co-chair of the GCEW, and Co-chair of the Advisory Board for the UN Human Development Report (UNHDR).

Mr Speaker, it is indisputable that our President’s appointment is a full-time position having a substantial salary, which makes it one of the best-paid elected heads of state in the world.

Mr Speaker, aside from what Deputy Prime Minister said about President Tony Tan serving on the Senate of the Nobel Laureates, I am not aware of any report of any of our past elected presidents holding any concurrent positions in a foreign or international organisations in their private capacity. Certainly, this issue of a president accepting and holding office in a foreign or international organisation in his private capacity has not been brought up for discussion in Parliament until today.

I am also not aware of there being other elected heads of state elsewhere in the world who are allowed to hold any concurrent positions in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities while they are in office.

President Tharman himself noted, when he was a presidential candidate, that the demands of the office have grown in the face of profound global risks and uncertainties. My colleague, the hon Member for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Mr Gerald Giam, has shared with us earlier how President Tharman has articulated his vision for the presidency during his presidential campaign, including the roles he had expected to play and the work he had expected to carry out. Suffice to say, the roles and work he has envisaged are very substantial and will take time and effort. But every person, including all heads of state and our own Head of State, the President, only has 24 hours a day. Whether the President has enough time is just one consideration. Ought the President be allowed to do so is another question altogether.

Mr Speaker, when this Bill was introduced, many Singaporeans I spoke to shared with me and MPs from the WP that they expect our President to concentrate fully on his role as President and they hope our President would not be distracted by the roles he is holding in his private capacity. Indeed, I agree with them. The roles he is holding in international organisations do show that he is held by many with high regard and respect. I can also agree with the Government’s argument that such positions can possibly enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest.

However, the time spent on serving foreign and international organisations, no matter how fruitful they can be for our President and even for Singapore, equates to time not spent on his presidential responsibilities, including the roles he had campaigned on. From the conversations I have had, I think there is a very strong argument for a serving president to concentrate wholeheartedly in his or her presidential responsibilities. In fact, undistracted by other external private responsibilities, our president can be encouraged to serve our country and people more fully, not unlike the way President Tharman has shared in his campaign.

The Government has argued that it has safeguards built into this amendment Bill, for example, under Article 22Q(1), the Cabinet must be able to advise the President that it is in the national interest for the President to accept and hold that office and, under Article 22Q(2), the Cabinet may, from time to time, advise the President against saying something or doing anything in the performance of the functions of any new office that the President is holding privately and the Cabinet may require the President to relinquish his responsibility under Article 22Q(3).

Some safeguards may well be necessary if this Bill is to be passed to expressly allow the President to hold an office in a foreign or international organisation in a private capacity. But are the proposed safeguards sufficient or ever sufficient? Will the proposed safeguards create other complications or unintended outcomes?

Mr Speaker, while the Cabinet needs to be satisfied that any such appointment must be in the national interest, this does not preclude the possibility that the role that a president is initially allowed to assume in an international organisation may, unforeseeably, later on turn out to require more time and attention, for example, to handle an unexpected international crisis or an important issue affecting the organisation or the community which the organisation serves, which was unforeseeable or not expected at the time of appointment.

Yes, the Cabinet may be able to ask the President to relinquish his responsibility under Article 22Q(3). However, it may also be conceivable to argue that, at a time of crisis for such an international organisation or the community it serves, it may be morally or as a matter of conscience, difficult to step down and walk away from such a position of leadership. If done, it may even affect the standing of our President or our country. But if the President does not walk away and the Cabinet does not require him to relinquish, whether rightly or wrongly, it may still add to the time and responsibilities of the President within this foreign or international organisation which may, in turn, reduce or affect the time or attention he has on his actual role as our President.

Conflicts of interest may happen when one is double-hatting. An example of potential conflicts of interest situation with the President assuming board or leadership positions on foreign or international organisations would be when such organisations were to, after our President’s appointment, hold certain views or may introduce policy reforms or changes in conventions where some such changes may not be completely acceptable to our Government or are inconsistent with our policies; being compelled to not speak up within that organisation, or even to resign at that point in time, may not look impressive to our international friends.

What are the remedies when an actual case of conflict of interest were to happen? Beyond Article 22Q(2) providing for the Cabinet to advise the President against saying or doing anything in his capacity as appointment holder of such a foreign or international organisation, the Cabinet can ask the President to relinquish the external position he is holding pursuant to Article 22Q(3) and, under this provision, he must so relinquish, when asked. However, beyond relinquishing, the Bill, significantly, does not provide for how the President can be held accountable when such a situation happens. In comparison, the Ministerial Code provides that a breach of the Code can result in a Minister’s removal from office. Also, what would be the recourse under the law if a President were to disagree with the Cabinet and does not step down for whatever reasons he may have?

Mr Speaker, the amendment Bill allows the President to hold appointments in foreign or international organisations in his private capacity. The Bill is silent on whether time and expenses incurred in the course of attending to the President’s duties in the foreign or international organisations in his private capacity would be strictly regarded as private and personal, since the appointments were made in his private capacity.

Will taxpayers have to foot the bill for the travel and accommodation expenses of the President and that of his support staff and even the security detail from the Istana? What about the salaries of these civil servants? The Bill, as it stands, does not expressly allow taxpayers’ monies to be spent in the examples I have mentioned, especially as these appointments are held in a private capacity.

The Bill is also silent on the right of the President to accept remuneration from the foreign or international organisation. Will such remuneration be allowed?

Will the President, in his private capacity, have to take a leave of absence when attending to meetings of such foreign or international organisations in his private capacity? Indeed, my questions above are also for the amendments in the proposed Article 33A pertaining to Ministers holding appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacity.

I would be grateful for the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarifications on the above as they relate to the use of taxpayers’ monies and the proper conduct of Government officials.

Mr Speaker, in closing, our President, as our Head of State, should focus fully on his official Presidential duties and responsibilities for which he has been elected to do. Allowing the President to take up appointments with foreign or international organisations in his private capacity could detract from his official Presidential duties. The WP will, therefore, vote against this Bill.

Mr Don Wee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the invitations to our President and Ministers to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations are testament to the good regard in which Singapore is held. I agree that having our men and women on the seats of these bodies will be highly beneficial to Singapore in providing the opportunity to present our perspectives, shape discourse and advance our national interests. Having a seat at the table makes a difference to Singapore.

If we cast our eyes overseas, there are example of ministers from other countries who are part of international organisations. For example, Canada's deputy prime minister and minister of finance, Ms Chrystia Freeland, and Rwanda's minister of information communication technology and innovation, Ms Paula Ingabire, are members of WEF's Board of Trustees.

As a small island state with no natural resources, Singapore has thrived due to its people's capabilities and their connectivities with our global partners. We need to continue to promote Singapore well.

Indeed, the appointments of our leaders to such institutions will enhance Singapore's visibility and international standing, which include intangible qualities which have tangible and significant impact on our development and progress as a nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have one concern. How would the offices of the President and Ministers manage potential conflict of interest which may arise due to the appointment in their personal capacities? Parliament should have more clarity on this issue.

How can we be assured that all input by our President and Ministers at these bodies will be in our national interest? What happens if they put forth views not representative of, or even contrary to, the Government at these meetings? How do we separate the stances of the private individuals from the office they hold?

(In English): In addition, what would be the criteria set by the Cabinet for the organisations to be deemed acceptable? Will there be any control over the type and number of organisations that the President and Ministers may participate in? What are the guidelines that determine which roles may be approved? How will the Government ensure that these individuals will not take on too many roles which may have a detrimental impact on their ability to fulfil the requirements of their main jobs?

I would also like to ask how different are these international roles from the non-executive ones, such as patrons, which our President and Ministers undertake concurrently? For example, President Tharman is the Patron of the Digital for Life Movement.

Other questions which arise are about to whom or which office will be paid the fees and honorariums from the organisations and the billing of expenses, such as travel, security detail and accommodation, if any.

Despite these concerns, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill in view of the benefits and glory such appointments will bring to Singapore.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, the proposed constitutional amendments to allow the President and Ministers to privately take on foreign and international roles in the national interest raises numerous concerns, most of which my Workers' Party (WP) colleagues Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan have articulated.

I will focus my remarks on clause 1.2 of the Bill, notably, the retrospective dating of stipulations to September 2023.

I appreciate that Deputy Prime Minister Wong has indicated earlier that the backdating was not necessary per se but introduced it out of an abundance of caution. If so, for me, this is even more worrisome, for reasons that would become evident over the course of my speech.

Retrospective applications of the law, sometimes referred to as retrospective or ex post facto laws, involve backdating the legal status of actions undertaken prior to the enactment of the law. Legislative retrospectivity may affect previously established legal relationships and rights and may attach new legal consequences to earlier decisions made by parties that did not anticipate these consequences under prior law.

Ex post facto laws are, indeed, permissible in Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as ours because of the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

Yet even legislative sovereignty must be located within the legal order where the rule of law remains absolute. Whether one subscribes to a thicker or thinner conception of the rule of law, the general principle that laws should be prospective, open and clear is not contested. This is for good reason.

If we routinely amend laws and apply them after the fact, then we erode the very stability of the rule of law. These are consequences not just for the institution of the rule of law. Retroactive laws compromise both efficiency as well as equity. You can also, in the words of our own Court of Appeal, "undermine expectations".

Retroactivity becomes especially thorny when applied to matters involving the Constitution. Constitutions are meant to embody deep, fundamental principles that form the legal basis for the governance of sovereign countries. Indeed, in many jurisdictions worldwide, constitutions or Bill of rights form the very basis for prohibitions on retroactive legislation. This includes Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines and Russia.

Even in countries when the constitution does not explicitly prohibit ex post facto laws, they are almost always circumscribed, especially for criminal law.

Retroactive legislation enacted elsewhere has also been challenged on constitutional grounds, often at the very highest levels.

In the last session of Parliament, this House was very careful about enshrining specific provisions and rights into the Constitution precisely because of the notion that matters of policy that may not be sufficiently enduring should not garner constitutional amendments. It stands that we wish to be very careful about introducing retroactive clauses into any constitutional amendments because doing so would open up avenues for other future changes that could likewise be dated retroactively.

Based on a search in Hansard for the term "deemed to have come into operation", I was able to identify only a handful of other instances of Bills where retroactive applicability was hardcoded into the language of the Bill.

One is the Republic of Singapore Independence Act (RSIA), which was raised for First and Second Readings only in December 1965 but commenced on Singapore Day, 9 August, for obvious reasons. Since the RSIA has constitutional significance, this clearly justifies its retroactive application.

Another has to do with certain Bills related to pensions. The Pensions Act, enacted in 1956, was retroactively set to commence in 1939. Amendments to the Parliamentary Pensions Act were made retroactive from the commencement of the original Act, and the Act to eventually abolish such pensions was likewise rendered operative a little than a year earlier, relative to when it was passed.

This retroactive applicability was to align either with when the principal Act come into operation or with actual practice, when pensions had already been frozen since May 2011. This is, again, justifiable since the nature of pensions is such that they are accrued incrementally. So, the timing of pension applicability matters.

The most recent example is in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act. Certain parts of the Act, notably on conducting in-person meetings, were backdated to March that year. Given the limited understanding surrounding a novel and deadly disease, it is reasonable to expect the need to predate policy changes made in the fog of a life-and-death battle.

To be clear, Mr Speaker, there have been other instances where retroactivity was applicable but not hardcoded into the Bill. Section 8D of the Internal Security Act embeds a commencement provision that applies the amendments to proceedings that predate the Act. Amendments to the Singapore Military Forces Act, which affected reservists, were also ante-dated to two years prior, to be consistent with the functions assigned to the then Defence Forces Record Officer. In 1992, proposed changes to the mandatory death penalty for homicide offences were also applied to existing cases.

But, importantly, as far as I can gather, the common thread among these instances is that the case for retroactivity was always heavily justified, based on the importance of implications that could result were the law not applied retroactively – and it has never been applied to any constitutional amendment since 2007.

I believe Members of this House will, therefore, agree with me that all instances where retroactive legislation making is enacted to be sparing and any such cases should be justifiable by the gravity of otherwise not doing so. As suggested earlier, this basic argument should hold with even greater force when we are looking at a constitutional amendment, lest we run afoul of the underlying principles that undergird the rule of law as embodied in the highest law of the land.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there is any incoherence between the Bill at hand and our Constitution itself since the right to due process implied by Article 9 of the Constitution pertains to life and liberty, neither of which are threatened with compromise by the proposed amendments, nor does the present Bill appear to be in contravention to Article 11, which offers protection against retrospective criminal laws.

Nevertheless, we are left with an uncomfortable position of asking ourselves whether the stipulations of the proposed constitutional amendments rise to the level of the sort of circumstances spelt out in the prior instances where legislative retroactivity was accommodated.

Sir, in the run-up to the 2020 elections, I expressed concerns in a public debate over how, were the People's Action Party (PAP) not denied a supermajority in Parliament, that would tantamount to handing them a blank cheque. The stipulations in today's Bill only serve to reinforce that fear.

After all, if one deems the matters raised by this Bill as sufficiently serious, why were they not considered for passage previously? After all, the PMO statement on the Bill suggests that invitations to the President or Ministers to take on international roles arise "from time to time".

If so, why was this sort of accommodation not previously drafted into prospective law rather than now, retroactively, and as a constitutional amendment no less? Or has the Government itself treated the matter lightly, taking for granted the fact that, with a supermajority in Parliament, it is able to alter the Constitution at will and, hence, it would simply be a fait accompli to roll out a retroactive amendment?