Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and  Industry (a) what is the projected cost differential between importing clean electricity  from Indonesia as compared to alternative sources; (b) how many of the seven  conditionally approved Indonesian import projects have achieved financial close; and (c)  what safeguards are in place to prevent the renegotiation of agreed pricing terms after  infrastructure investments are made.

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and  Industry (a) whether there are contingency plans for any reduction in Indonesia’s planned  clean electricity exports below the 3.4 GW committed for 2030; (b) what amount of  Singapore’s 2035 low-carbon electricity import target of 6 GW is currently backed by  binding government-to-government agreements; and (c) what mechanisms exist in the  current conditional import licences to protect Singapore’s interests in situations where  source countries modify their export policies.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Energy Market Authority has issued Conditional Approvals to seven importers to import 3.4 gigawatts (GW) of low-carbon electricity from  Indonesia. Of these, five importers have been awarded Conditional Licenses as their  projects have made more progress. We will continue to work closely with the Indonesian  government to support the progress of these projects. This includes aligning approval processes within both governments before projects progress to the next stage of  development.

The importers aim to achieve financial close from 2025. If successful, they plan to  begin commercial operations from 2028. The importers are currently negotiating Power  Purchase Agreements with large scale electricity consumers. It is in the interest of both  importers and consumers to come to mutually acceptable commercial terms, especially on  the pricing and length of the contracts, so that the consumers can secure access to low carbon electricity to meet their decarbonisation needs and importers can improve the  viability of their projects.

Aside from the projects in Indonesia, we are also working with project developers to  import low-carbon electricity from other countries in the region. This will give us a  diverse portfolio of projects that can help us collectively meet our imports target of six  GW by 2035, and potentially import more electricity beyond 2035.

We will ensure our energy security as we embark on the energy transition. Natural  gas will continue to underpin our energy portfolio for the foreseeable future, even as we  scale up electricity imports, maximise domestic solar deployment, and potentially  introduce new low-carbon energy sources such as hydrogen in the future. We will also  have sufficient local backup generation capacity to meet our needs if there are disruptions  to the electricity imports.

LENGTH OF STAY IN TRANSITIONAL CARE FACILITIES AND CAPACITY  EXPANSION OF MOBILE INPATIENT CARE @ HOME PROGRAMME

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) in each year from 2022 to 2024,  what is the average length of stay for patients in transitional care facilities; (b) whether  the Ministry has expanded the capacity of the Mobile Inpatient Care @ Home  (MIC@Home) programme to the planned 300 beds in 2024; and (c) what is the current average length of stay for patients under the MIC@Home programme.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: The average length of stay (ALOS) for patients in Transitional  Care Facilities (TCFs) was 32 days and 37 days in 2023 and 2024 respectively. As of December 2024, the Mobile Inpatient Care at Home (MIC@Home) bed  capacity is about 185 beds. The ALOS for patients under MIC@Home is six days.

PROVISION OF SEATING AREAS IN RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL  DEVELOPMENTS FOR ELDERLY AND INDIVIDUALS WITH MOBILITY  CHALLENGES

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a)  whether URA will mandate a minimum number of seating areas in shopping malls to  support the elderly and individuals with mobility challenges; (b) what guidelines  currently govern the provision of such amenities in commercial developments; and (c)  how does the Ministry ensure that the needs of these vulnerable groups are addressed in  the planning and approval of new retail spaces.

Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) requires that all  new buildings and existing buildings undergoing major addition and alteration (A&A)  works comply with the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment (Code). Under the Code, resting areas with seats must be provided along long paths of travel around and  within buildings. The distance between each of these resting areas should be no greater  than 50 metres. The Code also recommends that these seats be designed with armrests at  an appropriate height to assist older persons or persons with disabilities to get up from the  seats.

In addition, BCA has published Universal Design Guides, which provides industry  with guidelines and good practices for accessibility features beyond the mandatory  requirements, including the design of resting areas with seats.

BCA regularly reviews the Code to ensure that its standards meet the changing needs  of the population. For instance, in the Draft Code on Accessibility in the Built  Environment 2025 that is currently undergoing public consultation, the Code Review  Committee has proposed to require at least one passenger alighting and boarding point to  be equipped with seats. We encourage members of the public to provide feedback on the  Draft Code, which is available for public consultation until 27 January 2025.

RETROFITTING MULTISTOREY CAR PARKS IN NEW ESTATES TO  ACCOMMODATE TALLER VEHICLES

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development in  newer estates such as Sengkang and Punggol where surface carparks are scarce (a)  whether HDB has considered retrofitting existing multistorey carparks to accommodate  taller vehicles; and (b) if not, what are the main constraints to doing so.

Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) multi-storey car  parks (MSCPs) are provided primarily to serve the parking needs of residents. They are  built in compliance with the Land Transport Authority’s Code of Practice on Vehicle  Parking Provision, with height limits sufficient for access by passenger cars and most

light goods vehicles. Larger commercial vehicles are generally not allowed to park in  HDB MSCPs due to safety concerns and potential disamenities to residents. Vehicles that are unable to park in HDB MSCPs can park at public surface car parks,  commercial and industrial car parks, as well as purpose-built heavy vehicle parks instead.  For temporary parking needs such as to facilitate loading and unloading activities, they  may also use the loading and unloading bays which do not have height limits. HDB has no plans to retrofit existing MSCPs to accommodate taller commercial  vehicles. Such retrofitting works would require major additional and alteration works or  reconstruction of the building, affecting all existing car park users.

HARMONISING WORKFORCE REGULATIONS ACROSS REGIONS UNDER  JOHOR-SINGAPORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower whether  workforce regulations will be harmonised across the two regions under the Johor Singapore Special Economic Zone, including procedures for obtaining work permits and  the ability to work in the other country, to enhance cross-border flows of people.

Dr Tan See Leng: The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone will strengthen  economic cooperation and connectivity, including facilitating the cross-border movement  of people and goods, to bring mutual benefit to the businesses and people of both  countries.

However, there is no intent to harmonise workforce regulations between Singapore  and Malaysia. Singaporeans who wish to work in Malaysia, and vice versa, must meet the  requirements of the respective work pass frameworks.

REVIEW OF CPF CONTRIBUTION THRESHOLD FOR SILVER SUPPORT  SCHEME AMID INFLATION

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the  CPF Board has reviewed the adequacy of the $140,000 total CPF contribution threshold  for the Silver Support Scheme in light of inflation trends since 2021; (b) what economic  indicators guide decisions on the timing and extent of adjustments to this threshold; and  (c) whether a systematic review process will be implemented to keep the threshold  aligned with the cost of living.

Dr Tan See Leng: The Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors who had lower  incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support and  resources in their retirement.

We review the Silver Support Scheme periodically to target support at seniors who  need it the most and consider factors such as inflation, while ensuring that the scheme  remains fiscally sustainable. From January 2025, the qualifying per capita household  income threshold has been raised from $1,800 to $2,300, and the quarterly payments are  increased by 20 per cent. The Total Central Provident Fund Contribution is indicative of  the incomes that seniors earned during their working years. The contribution threshold is  reviewed periodically, and was raised significantly in the last review, doubling in 2021  from $70,000 to $140,000.

The Government has rolled out additional measures to support all Singaporeans with  cost-of-living pressures, by enhancing the Assurance Package to more than $10 billion.  This includes measures such as the Budget 2024 Cost-of-Living Special Payment that  was disbursed in September 2024, Community Development Council Vouchers, and additional U-Save and service and conservancy charges rebates. Seniors who need more  assistance can also tap on Comcare assistance.

STATISTICS ON GROSS MONTHLY INCOMES OF FULL-TIME SELF EMPLOYED TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE CAR DRIVERS

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower for each year  between 2016 and 2023, what are the (i) 25th, 50th and 75th percentile and (ii) mean,  gross monthly incomes of residents who are full-time self-employed taxi drivers and  private hire car drivers.

Dr Tan See Leng: The (i) 25th, (ii) 50th, and (iii) 75th percentile, as well as (iv)  mean of the gross monthly incomes of residents who are full-time self-employed taxi  drivers and private hire car drivers are in Table 1 below.

PRIORITISATION OF CHILDCARE CENTRE SLOTS FOR HOUSEHOLDS LOCATED WITHIN ONE KILOMETRE OF CENTRE

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family  Development (a) whether the Early Childhood Development Agency takes into  consideration the distance between the home and childcare centre such as within a one kilometre radius, for the prioritisation of childcare slots in the event that a childcare  centre reaches maximum capacity; and (b) if not, why not.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA)  plans for preschool places to meet anticipated enrolment demand. It considers various  factors including demographic trends, projected resident birth rates, enrolment patterns,  and availability of preschool places within each Planning Area. From 2018 to 2024, we  have added more than 40,000 full-day preschool places, or a 25 per cent increase. Today,  there are over 200,000 full-day preschool places, which is more than sufficient to meet  demand at both the national and Planning Area levels.

Nevertheless, demand can exceed supply in a small number of districts due to  varying parental preferences and the lead-time needed to set up new centres or expand  existing centres. ECDA prioritises the expansion of capacity in such districts.

Preschool operators, including those under the Anchor Operator and Partner  Operator schemes, generally manage enrolment on a first-come, first-served basis. When  a preschool approaches its maximum capacity, the operator will prioritise new enrolment  by considering factors such as whether the child has a sibling already enrolled in the  centre and the distance from the child’s home to the preschool.

ECDA also encourages parents to broaden their choices by considering centres with  available vacancies in adjacent neighbourhoods, near their workplaces or the  grandparents’ homes. To better assist parents in this effort, ECDA has designed a new  preschool search function on LifeSG, which allows parents to look for preschools with  available vacancy in a given locale and directly liaise with preschools on enrolment  matters.

PROJECTED EXPENDITURE FOR NEW NEXT GENERATION ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD SYSTEM AND IMPACT ON HEALTHCARE COSTS

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the total  projected expenditure for implementing the Next Generation Electronic Medical Record  (NGEMR) system to provide a single patient record across all public healthcare clusters;  (b) how does the Ministry assess its impact on overall public healthcare costs; and what measures are implemented to ensure that the NGEMR system (i) delivers value for  money and (ii) does not increase overall healthcare costs for patients.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: The phased rollout of the Next Generation Electronic Medical  Record (NGEMR) at the National University Health System and the National Healthcare  Group (NHG) was completed in July 2024, while that for SingHealth will take place from  late 2026 to 2028. In total, the Government would have invested $1.5 billion over 10  years to develop and implement NGEMR for the whole public healthcare sector. NGEMR is a strategic investment with very significant benefits. More than 100  legacy Information Technology (IT) systems, and the associated costs, will be phased  out. For patients who receive care at different public healthcare institutions, detailed  medical records and doctors’ notes on their care will be readily accessible by their  doctors in the different institutions which will improve the coordination of care for the  patient. This benefit is now already realised for patients that seek care from both the  National University Hospital Singapore and NHG clusters. NGEMR will also enable  public healthcare institutions to utilise various analytical and operational IT tools in the  system, that is available currently and in future, to enhance workflow, raise efficiency,  and improve health outcomes.

USE OF BUS BOARDING RAMPS FOR WHEELCHAIRS AND BABY PUSHCHAIRS

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Transport (a) what operational  considerations underpin the current differentiation in the deployment of bus boarding  ramps for wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs; and (b) what are the specific targets and resources allocated to improve public transport accessibility for families with  young children.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Parents or caregivers have the flexibility to board from either  the front or rear doors, and to decide whether they wish to leave their child in the stroller  as they board. Parents or caregivers who prefer to use the ramp at the rear door can ask  the bus captains for assistance. For passengers in wheelchairs who require the use of the  ramp to board from the rear door, bus captains will deploy the ramp as a standard  procedure. There is a difference for passengers in wheelchairs as many of them may be  by themselves, unlike the case for children, and it may not be easy for someone in the  wheelchair to alert the bus captain.

Stroller restraints have been installed in the wheelchair bays of buses for families  who prefer to keep their strollers open. Since 2014, all new bus interchanges are equipped  with family-friendly features, such as baby care rooms and child-friendly facilities in  toilets. For existing bus interchanges, we will include these family-friendly facilities  during upgrading works where feasible. All stations along the Thomson-East Coast Line,  and the upcoming Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line are also equipped with  similar features.

APPROVAL FOR COURSES UNDER SKILLSFUTURE MID-CAREER  SUPPORT PROGRAMMES

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education why are certain SkillsFuture-approved courses not included under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support  programmes.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: The $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) supports mid career Singaporeans aged 40 and above to pursue substantive upskilling and reskilling to  stay relevant and competitive. Today, it can be used on over 7,000 courses with better  employability outcomes, including academic full qualifications and industry-specific  courses. SkillsFuture Singapore will work closely with sector agencies, industry and  training providers to refresh these courses and ensure that they support our economic and  manpower needs.

DETERMINING FACTORS IN SECONDARY ONE POSTING EXERCISES  GIVEN LESS DIFFERENTIATED PSLE SCORING SYSTEM

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the  Ministry continues to maintain finer distinctions internally in determining secondary  school assignments despite the ostensibly less-differentiated PSLE scoring system  introduced in 2021; and (b) if so, how frequently has (i) the choice order of schools and  (ii) computerised balloting, respectively, been a determining factor in school  assignments.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) conducts the Secondary  One Posting Exercise in accordance with a clearly defined set of criteria. This is publicly available on the MOE website. The first posting criterion is determined by the student’s  Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) score, which is the sum of the  Achievement Levels of their four PSLE subjects. If there are more students with the same  PSLE score vying for the remaining vacancies in a school, MOE will apply tiebreakers:  first, based on the students’ citizenship, then their choice order of schools, and, if there is  still a tie, computerised balloting.

Students whose school choice required tie-breaking had their posting mostly  determined by citizenship and school choice order. Over the past three years, the  proportion of students who underwent computerised balloting has remained at around one  in 10.

TIMELINE FOR REPORT BY EQUITIES MARKET REVIEW GROUP

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance  (a) what is the projected timeline for the Equities Market Review Group to provide its  phased recommendations to the Government; (b) what is the projected timeline for the  Government to review these recommendations and subsequently the phased  announcement of the recommendations; and (c) what is the expected implementation date  for these recommendations.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Review Group is targeting to  complete its report by August 2025. It may provide updates and announce its  recommendations in phases before August.

REPORTS OF INCIDENTS INVOLVING INTOXICATED PASSENGERS ON  PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year  over the past three years, how many incidents involving intoxicated passengers on public  transport have been reported; (b) how many individuals have faced enforcement actions  in connection with these incidents; (c) how are public transport staff trained to manage  intoxicated passengers including deciding whether to admit them onboard; and (d)  whether new measures are being considered to prevent intoxicated behaviours on public  transport and enhance commuter safety and comfort.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Passengers who are intoxicated and in an unsuitable condition  to travel are prohibited from boarding public transport. An intoxicated passenger who  exhibits disruptive behaviour may be asked to alight from the bus or train. Should the  passenger be uncooperative, rowdy or aggressive, the Police will be activated. These  passengers may also be issued with a Notification of Offence by the operators, and could  be liable to a fine.

Over the past three years, there has been an average of around 34 reported incidents  each month involving intoxicated passengers on public transport. Most of these cases did  not require enforcement action by the rail operators, the Land Transport Authority, or the  Police, as the individuals were cooperative.

Public transport staff are trained to manage situations involving intoxicated  passengers. This includes identifying signs of intoxication, such as the smell of alcohol,  slurred speech, and difficulty in walking or standing, to determine if they are fit to travel  on public transport. They are also trained on procedures for handling intoxicated  passengers who are causing nuisance or danger to others.

DATA ON HOUSING GRANTS DISBURSED AFTER REVISION OF  ENHANCED CPF HOUSING GRANT AMOUNT FOR FIRST-TIMER HOME  BUYERS

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development since  the revision of the maximum amount of Enhanced CPF Housing Grant for first-timer  buyers of HDB flats, what has been (i) the increase in total housing grants disbursed and  (ii) the increase in housing grants per HDB flat across BTO flats and resale flats, as  compared to the same had the quantum not been revised.

Mr Desmond Lee: In September 2019, the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG)  was introduced as a means-tested grant to provide additional support for lower-to-middle  income first-timer households buying new or resale flats. On 20 August 2024, the EHG  was increased to a maximum of $120,000 for families and $60,000 for singles, with  higher increases for lower-income households.

For Build-to-Order (BTO) flats, the Housing and Development Board disburses the  EHG before eligible buyers sign the Agreement for Lease for their booked unit, so that  they can use the EHG for downpayment. The first BTO exercise after the EHG enhancement was in October 2024, for which flat booking has yet to commence. As such,  there is no data at this juncture on the EHG disbursed for BTO flats under the enhanced  EHG framework.

For resale flats, the total increase in EHG disbursement for resale applications  registered from 20 August 2024 to 30 November 2024 is about $12 million. On a per flat  basis, the EHG increase ranged from $2,500 to $40,000 for households with household  incomes below $8,000.

COMPLAINTS ABOUT AGGRESSIVE OR JERKY BUS DRIVING

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many  complaints about aggressive or jerky bus driving have been received by LTA and public  transport operators in the past year; (b) how does LTA monitor and assess the prevalence  of such behaviours; (c) what factors contribute to such driving behaviours including bus 

schedules and driver demographics; and (d) what measures are in place to reduce such  driving behaviours to improve commuter safety and comfort.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Bus operators are required to submit details of public feedback  received to the Land Transport Authority every month. In the first 11 months of 2024, out  of close to 4 million daily bus trips by commuters, there was an average of around 10  pieces of public feedback per day relating to the driving behaviour of bus captains  (“BCs”), including feedback on jerky driving. Based on investigations, the majority of  such feedback were attributed to BCs reacting to other roads users, for example BCs had  to suddenly apply the brakes when other vehicles cut into the path of their buses.

Bus operators regularly review the runtime of buses to allow BCs to keep to their  schedule, while driving safely at a reasonable speed and within speed limits. BCs are not  asked to speed up in order to regulate the intervals between buses. All newly-licensed  BCs undergo a 5-day Enhanced Vocational Licence Training Programme, which includes  a module on safe driving techniques, followed by an additional 5-6 weeks of on-the-road

training before they are deployed to drive public buses. BCs also attend regular safety  briefings and go through refresher courses on safe driving techniques, such as the BC  Drive Safe course, which incorporate techniques on smooth driving.

Bus operators have also equipped their vehicles with telematics systems to monitor  driving behaviour. BCs with good driving behaviour will be rewarded with additional  incentives, while BCs with persistent driving issues will be sent for additional training  and may be subject to disciplinary action.

The Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce (“Taskforce”) was formed on 1 July 2024 to  review how road safety may be enhanced for bus commuters, bus captains and other road  users in their interactions with public buses. One area that the Taskforce is looking into is how we can further enhance the situational awareness of BCs in their interactions with  other motorists. The Taskforce aims to complete its review by the first half of 2025.

The post Written Answers To WP’s Oral PQs And Written PQs – 8th January 2025 appeared first on The Workers' Party.

I welcome the change in law providing for the increased flexibility for Singaporeans to import food of all types (save for a few specific items like animal blood) for personal consumption limited to 15 kg, doing away with existing rules allowing Singaporeans to say bring home meat products from certain countries alone. I think the rule change makes good sense and allows Singaporeans to make decisions for themselves for their own personal consumption. I recall that on a constituency trip to Johore last year, a resident of mine happily bought a number of rice dumplings with pork intending for her family members to enjoy, having first tried one and found them to be good. But she had to share the dumplings with fellow travellers for consumption before coming back to Singapore when she found out that she was not allowed to bring the dumplings into Singapore.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the good efforts of SFA in promoting and enhancing food safety in recent years, we continue to read of incidents of food poisoning arising from catered food. I note the tiering and enhancing of penalties and the strengthening of food safety regulatory framework. Beyond increasing penalties, can the minister share with this house what are the other efforts of SFA to promote best practices in the industry and minimize incidents of food poisoning? How can SFA engender a deeper appreciation of good food safety practices and ingrain a strong food safety culture among caterers and workers in the industry?

I next turn to food security. Mr Speaker, over the Chinese New Year period in 2019, Malaysia banned the export of four species of fish to Singapore as well as considered limiting egg imports here to Singapore[1]. Shortly after that, at the Committee of Supply Debates in March 2019, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, told Parliament about SFA’s “Grow Local” strategy to, I quote, “reduce our reliance on imports, and buffer the impact of overseas supply disruptions” Unquote. The stated aim was to, I quote, “locally produce 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030”. Unquote.

Last August, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon replied to Parliamentary questions from myself and other members of this house on the “30 by 30 vision” and gave some updates on our efforts to achieve the “30 by 30 vision”. Among other things, he mentioned that the business climate has, since 2019, become less favourable due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions and inflation.

He mentioned that during the COVID-19 pandemic and initial phase of reopening, our farms faced a shortage of foreign workers and construction delays and in the post-pandemic period, inflation and energy price hikes exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, as well as a more challenging financial environment, have added to their challenges. SMS Koh also said that (and I quote) “the “30 by 30 vision” has always been an aspiration”.   While I note the challenges he has mentioned, I do hope that the expression “aspiration” will not imply any buckling down from the government’s resolve to achieve its goal of locally producing 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030.

It can’t be because we need, now more than before, to press on towards the goal in the next 5 years, in spite of the challenges. Given the geo-political economy and landscape, now, more than before, we need, to use Minister Masagos’ words from 5 years ago, to, I quote,  “strengthen climate resilience and overcome our resource constraints” (unquote).

Mr Speaker, many felt that the recently concluded COP29 had focused more on securing agreement for the carbon credit issue over the need to reduce carbon emissions. At its current pace, the world’s current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) lead to about 2.7°C warming[2], far from the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target. Falling short of this target for 2030 is worrying for the world and for Singapore as climate changes are ever visible everywhere in the world with more frequent and unexpected bad weather or serious weather pattern changes, including floods, droughts, etc. One important consequence we are starting to see is how climate changes more frequently and adversely affect farming output, including aquaculture.

The recent crop failures of cocoa and coffee beans worldwide leading to massive increase in prices is a good reminder of how climate changes can affect worldwide supply and pricing of staple foods. Black pod disease and extreme heat followed by heavy rain impacted cocoa yields[3], sending price increase from US$2500 per tonne in March 2023 to US$10,000 a year later[4].

Temperature rises and lack of rainfall in Brazil led to price increase of Arabica coffee beans from US$1.5 per pound in October 2023 to US$2.5 per pound in July 2024[5]. Price of Robusta coffee beans rose from US$2.60 per kilogramme in July 2023 to US$4.68 per kilogramme a year later due to one of the worst droughts in Vietnam[6].

Even rice, which is a stockpile item under the Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR) in the current Bill, is highly vulnerable to climate change as it requires a high amount of water, is unable to withstand any drought and can only grow between 21-37°C. Temperatures above 35°C can adversely affect yields. With the current global warming trajectory of 2.7°C, one cannot rule out rice yields being affected by weather changes in the coming years.

Many smaller states are disproportionately affected by climate change as compared to bigger countries who have greater means and may prioritise their own climate change interests ahead of others. In COP29, many small states were disappointed that small states received much less funding than required (US$300 billion instead of US$1.3 trillion). Some  progress but arguably insufficient for the Paris goals.

In this post-COVID world, the continual rise of protectionism worldwide coupled with the lack of enforceable global frameworks may likely see countries prioritizing self-preservation and self-interest leaving vulnerable small states like Singapore, who requires imports of most of our needs. If food producing countries are affected by crop failures or declines brought about by climate changes, there may not be sufficient food exports and countries like Singapore will suffer by the drop in supply or even significant price increases which will also bring financial hardship to our people. Likewise geo-political conflicts or tensions may also affect food production and exports leading to similar consequences. In short, the above circumstances underlie the increased importance of food security for Singapore in an increasingly uncertain world.

This Bill introduces the MSR regime. I can agree that the MSR regime will, in principle, be able to provide us with a short-term food supply especially in time of crisis when for political or environmental reasons, fresh supplies of food are suddenly cut off from Singapore. However, the devil is in the details. Besides rice, which is already subject to the current Rice Stockpiling Scheme, what other food will eventually be required to be maintained under the MSR regime? Would the MSR eventually cover a full range of food items providing for adequate nutritional and calorific requirements for every adult and child? I heard SMS Koh said earlier that it will only be rice now but what are the conditions that will enable the DG to decide on other food categories in future?

The Bill also does not explicitly specify the required levels or thresholds under the MSR regime. Given that Singapore relies heavily on imported food supply (about 90% of our food supply), the MSR must be set at a level that can sustain our population during significant disruptions. Such risks can include pandemics, geopolitical tensions, export bans and climate related shocks.   Can the Minister share with the house what are the expected levels of stockpiling required under the MSR regime? I urge the government to give some details here to give assurance to Singaporeans of the sufficiency of the MSR stockpiles in times of crisis.

On the other hand, the MSR regime may impose significant burden on our food suppliers and importers. While the Bill is imposing penalties on businesses under the MSR regime, has the Government studied the financial impact the MSR regime may have on our Singapore suppliers and importers, especially our SMEs and local businesses? Will financial assistance by way of grants or subsidies be given to SMEs to help them to comply with the SMR stockpile requirements and if so, what are these?

Beyond financial assistance for the additional stocks required to be stockpiled by businesses under the MSR regime, will the Government also provide direct financial assistance by way of grants or subsidies or even actual warehouse space for the additional storage space for the mandated stockpiles so that businesses will not be out of pocket?

It is pertinent that the Government should take steps to ensure that all compliance costs will not be passed on to the ultimate consumers.

Mr Speaker, I have asked in my Parliamentary Question in August last year how the Government will assist our agri-trade businesses in coping with business cost challenges as they play their part in the Government’s “30 by 30 vision”. SMS Koh replied that SFA ensures that the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund remains relevant in meeting farms’ business and growth needs. The Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund is a $60 million fund in Singapore that supports local food-producing companies in the agri-food sector. The fund was established in April 2021 by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to help local farms adopt advanced farming systems and technology. 

SMS Koh also said that the ACT Fund encourages our farms to invest in productive and resource-efficient technologies that can help to manage resource use and, consequently, operating costs. He added that the SFA introduced the Energy Efficiency Programme (EEP) in 2023 under the ACT Fund to co-fund energy efficiency audits and the adoption of energy-efficient equipment and technologies to help our farms better manage their energy costs for the longer term.

While I am sure that the ACT has helped some businesses, I urge the Government to consider also giving assistance beyond capital expenses. This may be for farms which are not necessarily high technology or require assistance outside of technology or capability upgrades. Labour and rental costs are always a bug bear in Singapore.

SMS Koh, in a reply to another member of this house in August was vehement against   directly offsetting operating expenses, stating, and I quote, “it will be something quite challenging because it could well end up having the perverse effect of paying for inefficient players to offset their costs to the detriment of taxpayers’ money as well. So, we want to fund them so that whatever they do, has durability and sustainability for the longer term and fundamentally changes the way the company operates for a more sustainable future”. Unquote.

I understand his reasoning but I still hope the Government can do more to help our agri-businesses who are impacted by high operating expenses. Unlike other business sectors, the Government needs to find different ways to help our farms and agri-trade businesses to produce sufficiently so that they can in turn can help Singapore to achieve the “30 by 30 vision” for our food security. How can the Government do more to help our farms and businesses to supply the required products given weather and other environmental constraints, higher production labour and rental costs,  which may make their products more expensive as compared to the same products from another country? It won’t be just any type of vegetables or fish that is easy and cheap to grow or breed in Singapore. Our farms must supply part of the common basic food choices required by our own consumers.  The global norm for agriculture policies in developed countries is to provide direct ongoing subsidies for farms to meet operation expenses, tied to various goals such as maintaining soil health, improving livestock management, and reducing emissions. This can be seen in the EU member countries, Japan, Canada and New Zealand[KY1] .[7] Granted that our agriculture is on a different scale compared with these countries, but a little more help to our farms and businesses.where possible, even not on the same scale, can still help to push the needle.

Granted that our agriculture may be at a different scale compared to these countries, but a little more help to our farms and businesses, where possible, even on a different scale, can still help to push the needle.

One of our residents has asked about the effectiveness of the current measures as taken by the Government.  He has asked that, if the current Government initiatives are adequate or productive, why are local farms still struggling and, in some cases, closing down? Indeed, those who are struggling or closing down – they cannot all be the inefficient players.

Our resident has also asked what are the additional steps which can be taken to ensure the sustainability and growth of local farms and whether there are gaps in the current approach that need to be addressed to better support our local producers.

Mr Speaker, I would also urge SFA to look into assisting our agri- businesses, to secure seeds, feed and fertiliser. The same issues of food security for crops will also affect the security of seeds, feed and fertiliser. Without security of supply with stable pricing, this will affect the ability of our agri-businesses to secure their production and ultimately supply of food to Singaporeans, not to mention the survival of their businesses.

Mr Speaker, regardless of the challenges, we need to continue to push up our domestic food production. At the same time, there should be more bottom-up conversations with all stakeholders in the food sector to identify the pain points that each is facing whether in farming, supplying or in procuring local produce.

Minister Grace Fu in a recent reply on 12 November 2024 to a Parliamentary Question from my colleague, Aljunied MP, Gerald Giam shared that the SFA has been supporting the industry in achieving greater offtake for local produce through various initiatives. She said that this included incorporating a criterion in Government procurement to give additional points to businesses who have undertaken sustainability initiatives, such as being recognised under the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP), for procuring locally grown produce. The additional points increase their chances of securing Government catering contracts, including those with key Government entities. I welcome this and other efforts she shared.

Indeed, to support Singapore’s “30 by 30” goal of producing 30% of nutritional needs locally by 2030, efforts should focus on increasing uptake of locally produced food by major institutional buyers. These institutional buyers supply food to key government entities like the SAF, public hospitals, prisons, welfare homes and senior care centres, and play critical roles in scaling demand for domestic food. Incentivising these major institutional food buyers through long-term contracts, contractual requirements or price support measures can make locally sourced products more competitive, promoting the market viability of Singapore’s local food producers and enhancing national food security.

Minister Grace Foo also said our local agri-food sector also depends on consumer demand for their products, that consumers can play a part by choosing to purchase local produce which can be easily recognised by the red SG Fresh Produce logo or dine at food businesses under the FTTRP. I strongly agree with her when she said that “local produce is fresher, lasts longer and incurs less transport miles as it need not travel long distances or for long periods of time before reaching consumers”. For many years, this adage of “incurring less air miles” has been in our minds whenever my wife and I are buying groceries. We may not always be able to avoid buying foods from afar but it does help to steer decisions towards to buy local products whenever they are available. “Less Air Miles”, my wife will always remind me.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I hope the Government will continue to spare no efforts to achieve its “30 by 30 vision” to locally produce 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030. This should complement the new MSR regime setting up food stockpiles. Notwithstanding my questions, I support the Bill.

[1] https://mothership.sg/2019/03/30-by-30-food-security-singapore-food-agency/

[2] https://climateactiontracker.org/climate-target-update-tracker-2035/

[3] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/cocoa-prices]

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/26/cocoa-prices-are-soaring-to-record-levels-what-it-means-for-consumers.html]

[5] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-07/coffee-prices-jump-on-weather-concerns/104104818

[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-24/global-food-roundup-coffee-prices-are-rising-on-shortages;https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-07/coffee-prices-jump-on-weather-concerns/104104818

[7] Japan: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tessd_e/190923_subsidies_presentation4.pdf

NZ: https://www.cato.org/free-society/summer-2024/freedom-farm-lessons-new-zealand

Canada: https://www.ifn.se/media/wgzbsabl/wp1129.pdf

EU (Common Agricultural Policy): https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en

 [KY1]Japan: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tessd_e/190923_subsidies_presentation4.pdf

NZ: https://www.cato.org/free-society/summer-2024/freedom-farm-lessons-new-zealand

Canada: https://www.ifn.se/media/wgzbsabl/wp1129.pdf

EU (Common Agricultural Policy): https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en

The post The Food Safety And Security Bill – 8th January 2025 – Speech By Dennis Tan appeared first on The Workers' Party.

The Food Safety and Security Bill is a refresh of our food-related legislation, with a strong focus on strengthening food safety regimes and installing safeguards for food security, and The Workers’ Party supports its implementation. Part 2 of the Bill is titled “Strengthening resilience of food supplies in Singapore”. I would thus like to focus on our food resilience and how we can build an environment that enables a thriving local agri-food ecosystem as a core pillar of this. My speech today will thus cover two areas: (1) Resilience Framing and (2) Moving from ‘Support Local’ to ‘Champion Local’. 

Post pandemic, attempts have been made to diversify our import sources and we also set an ambitious goal for local food production. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) is overseeing these efforts, from the Lim Chu Kang master plan for the high-tech Agri-Food sector, to the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund and the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited  to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses. 

However, we still face many headwinds. The number of countries that we import food from grew from 172 to 180 between 2019 and 2021. Yet as diversified our food sources are now, according to a World Bank dataset, we remain dependent on a small handful – just five countries – for  approximately 60% of our food in 2022. This number has gone up slightly from around 57% in 2019. We have seen local vegetable and aquaculture farm closures due to unviable economics, and the proportion of local vegetables and seafood eaten in Singapore declining since the announcement of the 30 by 30 goal, decreasing from 4.5% to 3.2% and 7.9% to 7.3% for vegetables and seafood respectively between 2019 and 2023. Lastly, in food-abundant Singapore, around 10% of Singaporean households remain food insecure, primarily due to financial constraints, according to The Hunger Report in 2020 published by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation supported by The Food Bank Singapore. 

Resilience Framing

Our starting point should thus be the concept of resilience, especially in the context of food. According to the SFA in a 2022 Food Statistics Report, we import 90% of our food and 40% of our water, while our local agri-food sector only produces 29% of eggs, 8% of vegetables and 4% of seafood, far from meeting local demand. We are therefore cannot be said to have food resilience. This is clearly evident in the SFA’s strategy to diversify food import sources, encouraging consumers to support local and boost local food production. However are our efforts tackling the sources of food sufficient to enable us to achieve food resilience? According to a 2020 paper on the resilience of local food systems and the links to food security published in a Food Security Journal, and I quote, “resilience is about the capacities of households and communities to deal with adverse events in a way that does not affect negatively their long-term wellbeing and/or functioning”. 

The framing of resilience in this context is therefore broader and more holistic than simply addressing food security. It is understanding three dimensions – (1) exposure, that is, how much our communities are exposed to externalities or risks, (2) sensitivity, how much harm would it cause and (3) adaptive capacity, the ability of our communities to mitigate the harmful effects). For example, a pandemic is an exposure risk, our high dependence on a small handful of countries for a high proportion of food imports is a sensitivity factor and the financial ability of households is a measure of adaptive capacity. A holistic resilience building frame entails the need to recognise the interplay between these three dimensions of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Such an overarching frame for resilience will guide the top-level objectives that we should be setting for example our 30 by 30 goal and to foster the right holistic ecosystem to enable our agri-food sector to thrive, across the entire value chain. This means from subsidising, financing, design and conceptualisation of farms to the streamlining of multi-agency red tape and local food affordability and access. Expanding this frame would ensure we always think beyond diversifying import sources and local production. 

SFA’s vision is “Safe food for all”, and its mission is “To ensure and secure a supply of safe food”. SFA’s mandate is therefore centred around the themes of food safety and security. If SFA is responsible for our 30 by 30 goal, we should thus refresh and add to this mandate, to reflect a frame of resilience. An aligned mandate will enable SFA to effectively oversee the implementation of holistic policies that complement its role as the accountable body for Singapore’s overall food resilience. 

‘Support Local’ to ‘Champion Local’

We are also now seeing the complex dynamics of multiple dimensions such as climate change and public health being interconnected with food resilience. This is already evident in some of the objectives of the Bill, which includes safeguarding against potential supply disruptions and enabling the Ministry of Health to promote public health through better diet and nutrition. It is time that we do more than merely to “Support Local”. We need to “Champion Local”. It means listening to the needs of all players across the agri-food value chain to introduce policies that actively address these needs while being a part of a holistic strategy built upon strengthening food resilience, and not just leave it to the vagaries of consumer sentiment to bring about genuine change. It also means recognising and harnessing strengths of our local produce, championing them, and not merely seeing local produce as a charity cause to be supported. 

In this vein, two main groups I would like to speak on are, first Food Producers or Farmers and second, Consumers. 

For food producers, current strategies revolve around helping farms ‘grow more with less’. Policy examples include the unlocking of land and seaspace, and co-funding schemes such as the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) for high-tech, productive farming systems. There is much emphasis on farming technology and R&D. However, this means we may sometimes lose sight of the unviable economics that most farms in Singapore currently face. Energy, manpower and rent are the largest cost contributors to the operation of urban farms in Singapore. High-tech farming systems and controlled environment agriculture (CEA) approaches are capital and energy-intensive while energy price volatility and looming increases in carbon taxes further exacerbates high operating cost concerns. We need policies based on first principles in order to mitigate the largest cost buckets for operating a farm. How can we streamline administrative hurdles in order for farmers to, for example, tap into renewable energy options such as solar panel installations? 

Additionally, the Bill contains provisions relating to a Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR) to secure our own supply of food sources, which is important given the rise in protectionist sentiments globally. However, this mechanism can be more robust. Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions that allow the Minister to specify that a food is a “MSR product” through subsequent regulations, and thus means that under Clause 20, an entity subject to the MSR provisions must hold minimum stocks either on a daily or on average over a period of time, which will be communicated to the MSR entity through a trigger notice under Clause 23. Clauses 28-31 further describe the obligations that MSR entities are under, and the penalties that they are subject to should they fail to adhere to the directives given to them by the Director-General, Food Security.

There is thus concern amongst food producers and other players about which foods will fall under the MSR framework, and that this will add to additional compliance and other costs, particularly for SMEs or start-ups in the space. Could there be more specific guidance given to industry players over the short- to medium-term about what foods will likely to be considered as MSR products? Additionally, what assistance – be they financial, subsidies, shared infrastructure – will be made available to support any additional costs associated with being subject to the MSR regime?

Additionally, we understand that the previous rice stockpile scheme will come under this MSR. But beyond rice, should we consider a Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR) for seed storage given how prone seeds are to supply chain disruptions and as a lifeblood for each harvest? If we are serious about achieving our 30 by 30 goal and more, should we also not critically evaluate the 1% of land allocated for agricultural land use in Singapore against other competing land use needs? 

Moving to consumers. SFA “aims to raise awareness on food security issues and rally support for local produce”, by encouraging consumers to make environmentally sustainable food choices. This is especially given how food systems account for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and food miles account for 19% of those emissions. The Minister herself echoed this narrative by calling on Singaporeans in April 2023 to support local even if it costs more than imported produce. 

Yet, a survey conducted by YouGov in 2024 found that only between a third to just under half of consumers polled expressed a preference to buy local eggs, vegetables or seafood. Of those who did not currently prefer to buy local produce, over eight in ten Singaporeans said they would likely switch to buying local if prices were lower than imported produce. The average price premium of local produce stands at approximately 30% to 83%. While there are undoubtedly factors that may prompt Singaporeans to support local, such as safety and freshness, it appears that cost remains a barrier. Rallying and ‘nudging’ Singaporeans to support local will not be sufficient in itself if we were to spur demand on a long-term, sustainable basis. How then can we build the right demand conditions to allow our agri-food sector to thrive?

Greater subsidies for local farms and/or the imposition of import taxes could help, but if we want to achieve our food security goal, we have to sustainably tackle the issue of cost. In light of this, I have some questions on the topic of cost premiums associated with local produce.

The tiered Farm to Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP) recognises businesses that procure at least 15% of local produce in at least one food category from a list of six categories. While the roughly 70 establishments that are on the FTTRP benefit from exposure and publicity in the hotels, restaurants and caterer sector, there is little by way of encouraging eventual demand. How can the qualifying criteria be strengthened over time in order to increase producer offtake? Simultaneously, can there be preferential credits or tax relief that can translate into lower costs for end consumers dining at FTTRP recognised establishments?  

Just like in any other industry, local farms operate in an individualistic competitive environment, facing both local and foreign competition. While there are benefits in having a free and open market, the issue of strengthening our food resilience begs the question of whether such an approach will continue to be in our best interests for the long-term. Can we explore co-operative structures for local farmers in order to mitigate key challenges, especially in the key cost buckets of energy, manpower and rent? To be sure, Singapore is not the only urban centre facing the challenge of encouraging “eating local”, especially where there are budgetary constraints. 

More specifically, while there have been tentative steps in starting community-supported agriculture in Singapore, it would be remiss of us not to learn from where this has worked and the potential pitfalls experienced by other countries in this model of farming. Under this arrangement, a direct relationship is formed between consumers and farmers, where consumers subscribe to the harvest of a farm or collective of farms, and receive portions of the farm’s harvest on a regular basis. Given that we had discussions in this House about the difficulties associated with ensuring that our children in schools are fed well, could we not combine central catering for schools with a CSA-type arrangement with local farms in a bid to boost the consumption of local produce? 

Additionally, food and nutrition are intrinsically linked to public health, and every human being should have a right to access healthy and fresh food or produce that is not cost-prohibitive. This is especially so given the increasing awareness and research about the severe health risks associated with the consumption of ultra-processed foods. Overall rising costs and the cost premiums of fresh local produce are standing in the way, hitting low income households the hardest. How can we tackle existing food insecurity and ensure more equitable access to fresh healthy food for all? This calls for new intervention models and multi-sector collaboration for food support between the Government, non-profit and private sector, and we have every reason for local produce to form the pillar of such models. 

To conclude, what does it mean to ‘Champion Local’? It means pushing a holistically resilience frame. It means we must be prepared to challenge prevailing strategies, approaches and tools at our disposal. It means for us to look to a cooperative mindset as a collective whole. It means that we start from a young age and ensure that our young ones understand both the challenges and benefits of eating local, particularly in a world facing a climate emergency. 

Most of all, it involves addressing the targeted needs of each stakeholder in order to build a food system that champions local, boosts demand for local while ensuring that vulnerable low-income households can also benefit from having affordable access to fresh and healthy local produce. 

The post The Food Safety and Security Bill – 8th January 2025 – Speech By He Ting Ru appeared first on The Workers' Party.

The Bill has several positive aspects.  Two aspects should be mentioned.  First, it covers all stages of employment from pre-employment hiring, and in-employment decisions to end-employment decisions.   Second, when employers are assessed to have breached their obligations, there is a range of responses from financial penalties and corrective directions to state prosecution, with employers having recourse to the courts if necessary. 

In my speech today, I would like to raise three questions related to the Bill.

When will the Workplace Fairness Act be Effective?

First, on the timing of implementation. We first understood that the anti-discrimination law was expected to be passed by the end of last year.  When there was no indication by October last year that the law was being tabled, I was puzzled and filed a Parliamentary Question about this for the November sitting.  The Minister replied then that the Workforce Fairness Bill would be tabled in Parliament that month.

Now we understand that the legislation is being tabled in two parts, the first part now and with a second part on employment claims, to be tabled later this year.  Thus, the earlier-indicated timelines have been missed. 

The government has announced that the provisions of both parts would be effective in 2026 or 2027 i.e. possibly two years from now.  Could the Ministry be more specific as to the various milestones and approximate target dates, so that we can better understand why it will take so much time?

Employees Mis-labelled as Independent Contractors

My second question arises from the scope of the Act i.e. what situations are covered. 

I note from Clause 4(3) that the Act does not cover contracts for service i.e. those who are engaged under arrangements that make them independent contractors.  While I do not disagree with this, I wish to highlight ground feedback I have received about some unscrupulous employment practices.  A resident told me that he had worked for his employer for years and when he was nearing retirement age, his work arrangement with the employer was converted from the status of employee to a contract for service i.e. he was re-hired as an independent contractor.  This was despite the fact he was working at the same tasks. 

Such a change in status from employee to independent contractor would deprive the worker of significant protections such as CPF contributions, work injury compensation insurance and soon, from the provisions of the Workforce Fairness Act as well.  This is not acceptable as such a practice is tantamount to discrimination on the grounds of age.  Is the Ministry tracking such situations of potential bullying of older workers, and if so, what is being done?

How Protected are the Protected Characteristics?

My last question relates to what the Bill calls “protected characteristics”.  The Bill lists 11 protected characteristics, meaning that employers should not use those characteristics to discriminate against job-seekers and employees.  These 11 protected characteristics range from age, sex and nationality, to marital status, race, and mental health condition.

My query relates to the pre-employment stage i.e. when the employer is deciding whether or not to hire an individual.   Fundamentally, my question is this: what exactly are the restrictions on what the employer can or cannot do?  

While the Bill states that the employer should not make an adverse employment decision based on any of the protected characteristics, it is silent on how the employment processes need to change.  For instance, is the employer permitted to ask any questions about the protected characteristics?  For instance, it is common in Singapore to see pre-employment forms asking potential hires for their marital status, race and whether they have been ever treated for any mental health condition.  During hiring interviews, women especially are often asked about their caregiving responsibilities or potential parenthood plans. 

Regarding what sorts of questions cannot or should not be asked during hiring interviews, a brief look at some other jurisdictions is useful.  At one end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions such as South Korea and Denmark legally prohibit employers from asking for information on marital status and race.  Mid-way in the spectrum would be other jurisdictions such as the US and UK, where questions about some characteristics are not permitted at all, like on disability and health; however, for other characteristics such as pregnancy or parenthood plans, employers are merely advised not to ask those questions, as such questions could be considered to be evidence of discrimination.

Is the Ministry’s intention to prohibit certain lines of questioning, or is the intention merely to discourage such questions?  Will there be, for instance, subsidiary legislation covering prohibited questions, and what the consequences will be if they are asked?  For questions that are to be discouraged, this change itself will involve overhauling long-standing hiring norms. How will MOM work with employers to adjust their hiring practices and to monitor whether practices have indeed changed?

For protected characteristics to be meaningfully protected, a strong framework needs to be in place.  If questions about the protected characteristics continue to be asked, it opens the door for employers to make decisions based on those characteristics, but to disguise the real reason in more kosher language to avoid complaints and investigations.  Such a loophole should be avoided where possible, as this would render the protection toothless.

Conclusion

The Bill has an important signalling effect that discrimination in the workplace will attract consequences for employers.   The Workers’ Party supports the Bill.  I look forward to the Ministry’s clarifications on the three points I have raised concerning timing of implementation, employers who disguise employment as contracts for service, and on what is permissible during the hiring process. 

The post Workplace Fairness Bill – 8th January 2025 – Speech by Sylvia Lim appeared first on The Workers' Party.

Mr Speaker, when the Workers’ Party participated in the general elections in 2020 to seek a mandate from the Singaporeans, the call to introduce anti-discrimination legislation was an important proposal in the Workers’ Party’s manifesto. Separately, and for some years now, several MPs, on both sides of the House, have also called for such legislation.

But as late as 2018, the Ministry of Manpower spoke out against the codification of Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) into legislation. It argued that doing so would not lead to superior employment outcomes; and separately, that the specific anti-discrimination legislation may have the unintended consequence of deterring businesses from hiring workers because these businesses would become fearful of dismissing workers even with legitimate reasons.

I spoke at some length about the importance of such legislation in my first speech as Leader of the Opposition during the debate after the opening of Parliament in 2020.

Mr Speaker, the reality is that the spirit of any anti-discrimination legislation does far more than just supporting and helping workers. This Bill sends a fundamental and powerful message.

It speaks to how the State deals with where Singaporeans stand at workplaces in their own country.

It speaks to how the State recognizes multi-racialism especially when minorities form about 25% of the population.

It is a powerful signal particularly when one considers the domestic context over the last decades. This would include, the fears of some Singaporeans becoming second-class citizens in their own country where some believe job prospects are better if you are a foreigner on an Employment Pass, than a local-born or naturalized Singaporean.

Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party supports the Workplace Fairness Bill. I will speak on some issues the Bill raises and seek clarifications on some others. My colleagues Sylvia Lim, He Ting Ru, Faisal Manap and Louis Chua will also speak on this important Bill.

Singapore First

First on Clause 3, which covers the purpose of the Bill. It states four purposes to this proposed legislation.

First, to protect individuals from discrimination by employers on the grounds of the protected characteristics listed in Clause 8 covering age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language ability, disability, and mental health conditions.

Second, it establishes fair employment practices, including the codification of the fair employment framework and legislating how employers handle grievances.

Thirdly, and very significantly in my view, it ensures that Singaporeans and PRs are fairly considered for employment opportunities and continue to form the core of the workforce in Singapore, with foreigners as a complement. And finally, to preserve harmonious workplace relations.

Where does this Bill leave foreigners, who are critical complementary components in many sectors of the economy? This Bill, correctly, offers wide and significant protections to them as well, notwithstanding Clause 22.

Clause 22 reads that it is not discrimination to say that an employment opportunity is for a Singaporean or PR at the expense of someone who is a foreigner.

It is a simple exception, worded in the negative but clear in its intent. Employers must always aim to recruit Singaporeans and PRs first. And this must be so. Otherwise, how do we build and sustain a united people and nation heavily reliant on immigration which is a fault line in many parts of the world.

How do we convince Singaporeans that their National Service commitments are not in vain? How do we convince them that the State will always have their backs? Hence, employers should not see this legislation just as an administrative process, or worse, a burden. It is far more important than that. I would even go as far as to say that it is an critical piece of legislation with a view towards nation-building in the years to come where many of our challenges will be domestic.

What are “protected characteristics”?

Mr Speaker, the Bill is also significant in how it seeks to achieve certain important goals and to balance the relationship between workers and employers. It covers discrimination not just with respect to hiring decisions, but to in-employment decisions such as performance appraisals, promotion, training opportunities and finally, dismissals.

On the protected characteristics or the specific discriminatory grounds set out, Part three of the Bill seeks to define the meaning of eight out of the 11 characteristics. Clauses nine to 16 seek to clarify the ambit of these characteristics and must be read with exceptions at Part 5 to be properly contextualized and understood by workers.

Employers are allowed to consider a discriminatory hire if there are genuine job requirements, on the grounds of age, in favour of citizens and PRs, on religious grounds and on grounds of disability. In the main, the exceptions are fair and practical, and they provide significant operating space for employers to make employment decisions in the best interest of their corporate entities and companies.

However, I found the explanatory statement to Clause 17(3) intuitively problematic and odd, especially since this Bill addresses discrimination. This clause deals with what is commonly referred to as associated discrimination and it reads, “An employment decision made only on the ground of a protected characteristic of a relative or an associate of the individual is not discrimination.” This reads innocently until one peruses the explanatory statement to this clause at the end of the Bill which reads, “an employer does not discriminate against A if the employer dismisses A on the ground of the race of A’s husband”. 

Prima facie and without more, this explanation makes it clear that A’s employer is a racist. What has the race of A’s husband have to do with A’s employment and dismissal? By extension, other extreme examples that would not be out of here would be when an A chooses to fire a worker if their spouse is a foreigner, or their parents are too old or their child is mentally disabled.

These examples show how ludicrous discrimination by association can be insofar as the explanatory statement is concerned. Can the Minister can clarify what this clause seeks to achieve in favour of the employer with concrete examples from TAFEP’s history, given that TAFEP has been around for close to 20 years now. Such examples may be more useful in explaining why this clause is necessary, compared to what the explanatory statement to this clause seeks to communicate. 

How to lodge a claim?

Workers must note that for practical purposes, they would need to secure evidence to lodge a workplace fairness claim. I note the Tripartite Committee’s Workplace Fairness final report listed two key requirements to the end: First, the claimant should clearly cite the incident that led him/her to believe that he/she suffered an adverse employment outcome because of a protected characteristic; and the cited incident should show how the consideration of the discriminatory action, for example on the grounds of age or nationality led to the adverse employment outcome.

The report also says that documentary evidence such as emails, mobile phone messages and oral testimonies which are signed by witnesses will strengthen the claim.

These requirements are very likely to be a bridge too far for many workers, and discrimination on the grounds of the protected characteristics may well be quite difficult to prove, particularly at the moment of employment. I would be grateful if the Minister could share some examples of how TAFEP helped workers who made such complaints on the grounds of nationality and age at the moment of employment were successfully resolved in favour of the employee, so as to better help workers appreciate the evidentiary threshold to overcome.

To this end, the Tripartite Committee’s report does list out some helpful examples that would be useful to guide workers. In the absence of illustrations in the Bill, it would important for these examples to be profiled and updated as appropriate on easily accessible public resources on a public service website or channel, not just for the convenience of workers and employees, but for a more realistic understanding of what is perceived to be discrimination as envisaged by the legislation.

The fact that not all the illustrations that highlight the possibility of discriminatory treatment of workers in the committee’s report are determinative of discrimination, is a reminder that proving workplace discrimination is not always straightforward, and many workers will have to be alive to the reality of “indirect discrimination”.

Indirect Discrimination

The prospect of indirect discrimination was raised by my colleague Sengkang GRC MP Ms He Ting Ru in a parliamentary question in 2023 after the Tripartite Committee released its report. The Bill before the House does not cover indirect discrimination as the Tripartite Committee opined that it would impose very wide legal obligations on employers resulting in uncertainty for both employers and employees. In addition, the was a concern of an overly legalistic relationship between employer and employee.

While this perspective is not completely without merit, it must be remembered that there could be some cases of employment decisions that arise out of norms, culture or processes are nonetheless discriminatory. This would be one area to monitor closely going forward to better support workers who are commonly in a more inferior bargaining position compared to their bosses and employers who exert significant direct and indirect control over them.

I note that TAPEF welcomes complaints covering indirect discrimination even if this Bill does not list “indirect discrimination” as a “protected characteristic”. To this end, it would be critical for TAPEF to list out examples of such indirect discrimination which it should profile publicly to complement the Bill. My colleagues Sengkang GRC MPs He Ting Ru and Louis Chua will share how the common law has developed with regard to indirect discrimination in other jurisdictions which have a longer history of hosting anti-discrimination legislation to better address such problems. They will also speak on discrimination by denying workers “reasonable accommodations”.

Companies with less than 25 workers

Sir, the Ministry of Manpower’s press release on the first reading of the Bill states that small firms with fewer than 25 employees will be exempt from this Bill and that tripartite partners will monitor the situation and review the exception in five years time. If this Bill comes into force in 2026 for example, it follows that all our workplaces will only be covered in 2031 at the earliest. My colleague Ms Sylvia Lim will speak on the issue of timing and other matters in her speech. 

This exemption was the subject matter of my parliamentary question to MOM in 2023 when I enquired how many discrimination-related complaints were made by individuals working in companies with a headcount of less than 25. While the intent of the Bill envisages that firms with less than 25 workers will continue to be covered by the TAPEF guidelines, the Minister confirmed that between 2018 and 2022, 35% of workplace discrimination complaints were received from those working in firms with headcount of less than 25. This is not an insignificant number. I have some queries in this regard.

For clarity, can the Minister confirm if the threshold number of 25 is to be understood on a group basis for companies that have a holding company and multiple corporate entities for corporate planning and risk management purposes but effectively operate as one entity, or for an individual corporate entity such as a company? And in addition to this, are the civil service and public service officers, including the uniformed services and statutory boards also be covered by the Bill?

More significantly, as provided for in Clause 28, the Bill provides not insignificant protections for workers when they raise grievances to their employer. As it stands, workers who are employed by companies with less than 25 individuals will not be covered by Clause 28 at least for the next five years. In view of the protections available for workers who make legitimate claims and the prospect of other civil relief which will be made known by the Government later in the year through sister legislation, I hope more resources can be placed at the feet of these smaller companies to help them come up to speed with the requirements of this legislation –  by way of regular updates from TAFEP – so that all workers can be covered by this anti-discrimination law in good time. 

I understand and respect the approach of the tripartite partners in taking a staggered approach out of practical necessity. However, a clear roadmap with intermediate goals towards compliance for companies with less than 25 workers would be necessary as the Bill today still does not cover 25% of our workforce. Why are such intermediate checkpoints important?

Sir, as I alluded to earlier, the Bill before the House today is not just a piece of manpower legislation. It is a social legislation too. For many Singaporeans, work takes up a significant part of most of our all lives. In a recent podcast last month, the Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong remarked and I quote: “In any multiracial society, it is harder to be a minority, than the majority.” PM urged those in the majority community to be sensitive, engage and to reach out to minorities across all aspects of life. These remarks are relevant to the Bill before the House and promotes the outcomes it seeks.  

To this end, workers need to consider that some employers’ perceived lack of sensitivity may be down to ignorance, inexperience and a lack of exposure, as opposed to malice. For things to change, greater professionalism and mutual respect at the workplace must be promoted. Such human recourse improvements, welcomed through open conversations, can boost productivity if undertaken sincerely by both workers and employers. My colleague Aljunied GRC MP Mr Faisal Manap will speak on this point from a different perspective with a view to engender greater understanding for some of our workers and compromise from employers.  

For SMEs with less than 25 employees that professionalise more swiftly and adopt workplace fairness practices, and are ready before the five-year exemption period is over, such workplaces may well generate greater interest from job-seekers. A “fair workplace ready” TAFEP accreditation scheme as workplace fairness-ready for workplaces with less than 25 employees may well be something the Ministry can consider as an intermediate option, before the review of this legislation comes up.

To that end, I hope the Government can pay close attention to the processes by which these smaller companies currently not covered by the Bill are educated about their obligations under the TGFEP after this Bill is passed, with a view to their prospective coverage under this Bill in future.

Administrative Penalties

Clause 31 details the administrative penalties that will be invoked when employers are issued with a contravention notice requiring them to pay an administrative penalty of a prescribed amount. The nature of the civil contraventions are wide, ranging from penalties for retaliation against complainants, to the publication of a discriminatory direction, to providing inaccurate particulars to the Commissioner, amongst others.

Can the Minister clarify if the Bill contemplates a specific penalty amount for each of the civil contraventions listed in Clause 31(1)(a) to (i), or is there an open-ended range of penalties for example up to $5000 for any contravention? For example, Clause 34 of the Bill covers the specific penalty amount that an employer will be imposed in the case of a serious civil contravention – $50,000 for a first order and $250,000 for subsequent cases. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity with respect to the dollar value of the administrative penalties under Clause 31 (1)(a) to (i).

Clause 34 (1) devolves significant powers to the Commissioner to determine what constitutes a “serious civil contravention” by the use of the term, I quote “whenever it appears” unquote. Can I confirm if these powers relate directly to what has been established as serious civil contraventions in Clause 30, or are there other serious civil contraventions which are contemplated and not captured by the Bill. If so, some guidance and clarity as to what these are would be useful to be stated for the record.

Naming the companies

The Bill requires workers to go for compulsory mediation before considering the prospect of legal recourse, ostensibly with a view to maintain harmonious industrial relations and to avoid a litigious culture. However, litigation can be necessary when egregious cases present themselves and workers are on the receiving end of the same. We know that between 2018 and 2022, the two protected characteristics that host the most number of complaints to TAFEP were discrimination by nationality and discrimination by age.

The legal process and legal proceedings would reveal the identity of the companies that commit such egregious discrimination or serious civil contraventions. To this extent, is it the intention of the Bill for the Commissioner to also reveal the names and circumstances of companies that are subject to administrative penalties as envisaged under Clause 31? TAPEF has hitherto been conservative in revealing the names of companies found to have violated the TAFEP guidelines.

Naming the employers who fall foul of this Bill is not to encourage a name-and-shame culture. On the contrary, such an approach would be useful in supporting the purposes of the Bill, educating companies and workers at large about discriminatory practices at the workplace and to nudge employers to take workplace discrimination very seriously to the benefit of workers. After all the only natural resource of Singapore is our human resource, and it is in our interest as a nation to ensure that all our workers receive protection from discrimination.

Conclusion

To conclude Mr Speaker, the Government has announced there will be a second Bill associated with workplace fairness which will introduce the procedural rights and processes for individuals to make private claims under this Bill. The Workers’ Party will debate this separately at its second reading. It is assumed that this will give better options for workers to pursue claims against unscrupulous employers.

The Bill before the house today marks a major philosophical shift in the PAP Government’s thinking on workplace discrimination. For some Singaporeans, the signalling of this philosophical shift that has taken too long, particularly when one recalls the deep discontent over the last decade or so of some Singaporeans over perceptions of being overlooked by some employers on grounds of nationality in particular. Late though it is, the change is for the better and the Workers’ Party will support it.

I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my clarifications.

The post Workplace Fairness Bill – 7th January 2025 – Speech by LO Pritam Singh appeared first on The Workers' Party.

Today’s Workplace Fairness Bill is a long-awaited law that has clearly gone through many rounds of development since it was first announced in 2021, so I am happy we finally have it up for debate. 

The Workers’ Party’s 2020 manifesto calls for explicit anti-discrimination legislation. This is because we felt that the TAFEP guidelines and enforcement via restriction of access to work permits are not enough to stamp out discriminatory practices. Moreover, we believed that formal legislation would provide clarity for both employers and employees, and Singaporeans in general, because laws don’t just provide mechanisms but are also signals of our society’s generally accepted moral intuitions.

The PAP disagreed. Then-Manpower Minister Josephine Teo said in September 2020 that “it might not result in better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups,” and asked if we might be more interested in form or substance. She further said that Singapore has better employment statistics for women and seniors than some other developed nations, and the threat of getting work pass privileges revoked was an extremely serious one. However, given the use of the term “fairness” in today’s bill, I am glad that the Government has come around to the view that signals and ethical stances are important in tackling discrimination in the workplace, and above all, it is important to legislate to outlaw such practices as illegal.

In my speech today, I would like to make some queries to understand why the Government decided to scope the legislation to: 1. exclude discrimination outside the workplace, 2. exclude indirect discrimination, 3. exclude several other protected characteristics the public has called for protections on, and 4. exclude several categories of workers.

The second part of the speech will cover what I believe to be a clear and major gap in this bill: discrimination via denial of reasonable accommodations.

Discrimination outside the workplace

On non-workplace discrimination, I understand that while this may feel novel in the Singapore context, are we simply taking a conservative approach to deciding and prioritising practicable applications of anti-discrimination legislation? Is the Government exploring whether it can legislate against significant and harmful discrimination in interactions that bear similar dynamics to employment, such as in the use of private and public services? For instance, the purchasing of goods and services on gig work platforms could be a scenario where discrimination takes place. Should landlords be allowed to discriminate against those from a certain racial background or with a specific family size? The UK Equality Act specifically prohibits discrimination in the provision of services, in access to premises and education. And while of course we do not advocate the wholesale copying of such laws, nor do we claim that these other jurisdictions are utopias without their problems, it seems a missed opportunity for us to legislate to outlaw discriminatory practices more generally.

Indirect Discrimination

Secondly, the Tripartite Committee deliberately excluded indirect discrimination in a move that would reduce legal obligations on employers and purportedly reduce uncertainty for both employers and employees. 

However, could the Minister clarify if the Government sees the lack of coverage of indirect discrimination as a problem, and how would we effectively address what some might call “nationality-based” discrimination against Singapore workers. For instance, it is often a practical impossibility to prove such alleged nationality discrimination. Workers are often only able to cite anecdotes about foreign HR managers being biased towards candidates or colleagues from their own country, while statistics showing larger-than-proportionate representation from some countries can be brushed off as coincidence. 

Another concern that has been raised is the use of National Service PES status to potentially discriminate against male candidates with non-visible disabilities such as intellectual disabilities. While the Tripartite guidelines do mention that employers should not suggest preference based on National Service liabilities, it is unclear whether they can ask about PES status. PES status can after all be used as a blunt tool to assess if the job applicant may have a medical condition or neurodivergent condition.  

Again, indirect discrimination is prohibited in several other developed jurisdictions like the UK, and indeed their Equality Act was considered in the Tripartite Committee’s review. Are such claims really that complex to introduce legislation for? And if prohibiting indirect discrimination is meant to be left covered by TAFEP guidelines, when will these guidelines be made available? 

After all, our society appreciates that indirect discrimination is unacceptable. For example, there was significant public outcry after a hijab-wearing Muslim worker was asked to remove her hijab in order to work as a promoter at a departmental store just a few years ago. This is a classic example of indirect discrimination, where a neutral policy about uniform and appropriate dress disproportionately affects certain groups – in this case, Muslim women. 

Another example of indirect discrimination in disability context is a requirement for candidates to participate in a phone interview for a data entry role. This requirement disproportionately affects deaf and mute candidates who are not able to complete the phone interview satisfactorily and are disqualified as a result. 

Such cases are precisely why indirect discrimination is recognised—and regulated—in many developed jurisdictions, including the UK, the EU, and Australia. The principle is that if an apparently neutral criterion or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a group defined by race, religion, gender, or other protected traits, the onus should be on the employer to demonstrate a genuine necessity for that criterion. Our Bill, however, remains silent on this front, which will permit covert biases to continue unaddressed.

We should not underestimate the significance of closing this gap. Those who rely on statutory protections are often the most vulnerable segments of our workforce—employees with disabilities, lower-income workers, older workers, women who juggle caregiving responsibilities, and those who start with less advantages in working life. If we only address blatant, overt acts of discrimination, we inadvertently leave behind these “hidden” or systemic patterns, which can be just as corrosive to social harmony and economic security.

Other characteristics that are well-known sources of discrimination

Next, several characteristics that are well-known sources of discrimination are not covered. For instance, those who have chronic medical conditions like arthritis and regular migraines are not covered. It appears to me that the Bill’s coverage of intellectual disabilities appears to indicate that learning disabilities are not covered. I base this on SG Enable’s definition of intellectual disability as mainly established by a person having an IQ of 70 and below or a feature of medical conditions like Down Syndrome, which is quite different from learning disabilities such as dyslexia – which the Dyslexia Association of Singapore estimates to affect around 10% of the population in Singapore. 

Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are also explicitly excluded in the Bill, which seems at odds with the Minister for Home Affairs’ statements that “gay people deserve dignity, respect, acceptance” and “do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation” during his opening speech in 2022 when this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and attendant amendments to the Constitution. This is notable as researchers at organisations such as NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and AWARE have found more than half of LGBTQ persons have experienced discrimination at the workplace, and that levels are generally higher than those who do not identify as LGBTQ. This concern about employment has also been raised by LGBTQ individuals to party colleagues previously, sharing that they have experienced discrimination from employers who decline to hire them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. 

This is disturbing, as we should aim to harness the contributions of all Singaporeans. Even if we were to not include these characteristics in the legislation, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister about how the ministry plans to address such types of discrimination experienced by fellow Singaporeans, particularly as it is not currently explicitly covered by TAFEP guidelines. 

Exclusion of several categories of workers 

Fourthly, I would like the Government to clarify why it and the Tripartite Committee excluded large classes of workers from coverage under the bill. Under Section 4(3), platform workers are explicitly excluded from the protections from discrimination. Foreign domestic workers also appear to not be covered because domestic workers are not covered by the Employment Act. 

Mr Speaker, these clarifications on exclusions are important because this bill took 3.5 years of development and many consultations with employers. It is also not a novel point of law, with many developed jurisdictions and international law to take reference from. Therefore these decisions must have been deliberate and the Government should be open with why they were taken in order. I am not casting aspersions, but hope that we can have better clarity and understanding of the thought process and timing behind how the Government intends to ensure that these groups too are eventually afforded legal protections against discriminatory behaviour.

Working quickly to introduce guidelines for reasonable accommodations 

Finally, I would like to speak on the need for reasonable accommodations, which are not covered by the Bill. Reasonable accommodations are necessary, appropriate, and practical adjustments made to society to make it fairer and more accessible to people with disabilities, with the UN ​​Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ definition highlighting that the point is to ensure they can exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others. Singapore is a party to the CRPD, where states recognised the need to ensure provision of reasonable accommodations and said they would take all appropriate steps to ensure their provision.

To this, the Minister mentioned that the tripartite partners are working on an advisory on the provision of reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, and as of May 2024, the Government’s view is that the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes reasonable accommodations could result in heavy litigation, citing what has happened in some other countries.

But disability advocates have highlighted that reasonable accommodations are by far their number one hurdle when it comes to employment. They are essential to people with disabilities participating in the workforce. Given the Government’s own target to increase the employment rate of persons with disabilities to 40% by 2030, I believe that this is a key policy lever to ensure that people with disabilities have a fair chance in joining the workforce and thriving at work.

Three main questions arise from this:

1. Considering that the Government has tabled the WFL and acknowledged the lack of teeth of the TAFEP guidelines, what recourse can persons with disabilities expect if their employers fail or refuse to comply with the tripartite advisory (if any at all)? 
2. Will the Government commit to a timeline to recognising the denial of reasonable accommodations as a prohibited form of discrimination under the WFA within the next five years?
3. As a matter of international law, does the Government consider Singapore to be compliant with our obligations under the CRPD if we do not legally recognise a right to reasonable accommodations? If so, how does it reconcile its position with the views of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the contrary?   

As the Government has resisted the call to legislate reasonable accommodations, how then does it propose to explore how reasonable accommodations can be mandated – and not just through an advisory which can be ignored. Could this mean developing policy mechanisms with a carrot-and-stick approach for employers to provide reasonable accommodations such as outlined below?

Employers should be convinced about the value of having a genuine, interactive process upon receiving any request for accommodation – something which has already been introduced in December 2024 with the Flexi-Work Arrangements. Like FWA requests, this would entail timely acknowledgement of employee requests and good-faith exploration of workable solutions. When a request is deemed impractical, employers should be required to provide written explanations or propose alternatives. Such a mutual dialogue builds trust, helps mitigate disputes, and ensures that both parties collaborate to arrive at sensible, balanced arrangements. 

Establishing what “undue hardship” for employers will also be helpful in guiding employers as to when a requested accommodation becomes unworkable. Factors such as an employer’s size, resources and potential operational impact must be taken into account, and should also take into account existing subsidies or supportive programmes.

In the meantime, the upcoming advisory should be made as effective as possible with concrete plans for uptake, targeting companies and industries that are the least likely to be providing reasonable accommodations. The advisory must not be just preaching to the converted. The advisory should also have a basic definition of what a “reasonable accommodation” is – taking guidance from the UN CRPD that Singapore has ratified.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a welcome move. It demonstrates that we, as a society, are prepared to take a stronger stance against discrimination. But the Bill excludes significant scenarios of non-workplace discrimination, offers narrow definitions of discrimination that leave out indirect and associational forms, and leaves entire groups — such as platform workers, migrant domestic workers, and people with certain disabilities — without clear legislative protection.

Crucially, we risk creating a law that the public might view as tokenistic rather than genuinely transformative. And if people lose faith that this legislation can protect them, a deeper disillusionment sets in, where they feel that systemic inequalities cannot be solved. Any sub-par results may ironically confirm the Government’s prior argument that legislation might be ‘only form’, so we must ensure it has real substance. We must ensure that our laws are truly robust, that they address real-world discrimination comprehensively, and that the Government remains open to future expansions of its scope.

I hope that we will address these gaps as a matter of priority, to consider future amendments that might strengthen protection for the groups left out, and especially to ensure that reasonable accommodations are not relegated to a mere footnote. Only then can we confidently say we have a Workplace Fairness Bill that is both firm in principle and forceful in practice.

Thank you.

The post Workplace Fairness Bill – 7th January 2025 – Speech By He Ting Ru appeared first on The Workers' Party.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether  there has been any study on the effects of Mother Tongue Language (MTL) options on  stress levels for students who have been offered MTL options; (b) whether this practice  has led to an emphasis on textbook competency over functional literacy; and (c) whether  this practice significantly disadvantages children who may have weaker disposition  toward languages, despite being gifted in other academic areas.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Our Mother Tongue Language (MTL) enables us to  understand our own culture and maintain a strong link to our heritage. It also offers  Singaporeans a comparative advantage by allowing us to connect with people who speak  the same language, as well as tapping into wider opportunities in the region. To this end,  equipping our students with strong foundation in MTL is important, and has been a part  of our education policy on bilingualism.

The Ministry of Education recognises that students have different abilities in the  learning of MTL. It is understandable for some students to feel stress in subjects that they  are weaker in. Our MTL curriculum is differentiated to cater to students of different  learning needs and levels of readiness. Students who faced difficulties in MTL can learn  at a more appropriate pace. For example, they can receive more individualised support  through the MT Support Programme at P3 and P4. They can take the less demanding  Foundation MTL at P5 and P6, and G1 or G2 MTL as they move up to Secondary level,  and still progress to pre-university.

Our MTL curriculum is designed to enable students to use MTL in everyday  situations, beyond just academic settings. For example, our Primary 1 students learn how  to use MTL in their daily routines like buying food in the canteen and greeting their family members. Other students also participate in activities like heritage walk, drama  appreciation and songwriting competition to facilitate their learning and use of MTL.  Such approaches help students learn better and reduce their anxiety.

Students who are gifted in other areas such as mathematics and arts are developed  through special programmes in schools. While we develop our students to suit their  strengths, we also seek to develop our students holistically so that they will have a wide range of skills to thrive in a dynamic world and connect with people around them.

RISE IN PUBLIC FLAT RENTALS DUE TO INCOME INCREASES AND  QUANTUM OF RENTAL INCREASES

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a)  how many public rental flat tenants experienced rent increases in the past year due to  income increases; (b) what was the average percentage increase in such cases; (c)  whether the Ministry has conducted studies into the extent to which rent increases may disincentivise work or income progression among tenants; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider further refining the current rent adjustment model to better support tenants’ efforts towards financial independence.

Mr Desmond Lee: Rents under the Public Rental Scheme are reviewed during  tenancy renewal, every two to three years. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) does not impose rent increases during the tenancy term, even if tenants’ incomes increase during this period.

In 2024, about a quarter of public rental households that renewed their tenancies had experienced income growth. Among them, about 1 in 5 experienced a rent increase. Their median rent increase was about $150, significantly lower than their median income increase of about $1,300.

The Government provides higher subsidies to lower-income households as they require greater support. To maintain the incentive for work and income growth, the Government has made refinements to the public housing rent structure over the years. HDB generally ensures that rent increases are significantly lower than tenants’ income growth, so that tenants are better off as their incomes improve. Factors such as household size and individual circumstances are also considered to ensure that the rent remains affordable. In addition, tenants who have signed the Agreement for Lease and made the downpayment for a booked flat do not experience any further rent increase, even if their  income increases during the time they are waiting for the booked flat.

We will continue to review the Public Rental Scheme regularly to ensure it meets  tenants’ needs.

PLANS FOR EUNOS COMMUNITY CLUB AND TIMELINE OF CLUB’S  REOPENING

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what  are the People’s Association’s plans for the Eunos Community Club (CC); (b) why has the  CC remained hoarded up and closed to Eunos residents for many years; and (c) when does the Ministry intend for it to be reopened for resident and community use.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: For all Community Clubs (CCs), the People’s  Association (PA) maintains a periodic Upgrading and/or Cyclical Maintenance  Programme to keep our CCs well maintained, functional and fit for purpose. Eunos CC  was selected for upgrading in 2023 under this programme.

A tender for upgrading works was called in September 2022. The scope of works  included the enhancement of existing spaces and also partial demolition and construction  of a new 4-storey block which included a rooftop basketball court and extension of multi purpose hall with new foyer. In anticipation of the impending upgrading works, Eunos  CC was closed.

However, the tender bids for the upgrading works were returned at a substantially  higher amount than had been expected. This was due in part to the increased construction  costs immediately post-COVID and other factors. After an assessment, it was decided  that it would not be prudent to proceed with the upgrading works at that time.

Instead, in consultation with the Grassroots Advisor, PA decided to scale down the  works to only essential ones, at a lower cost, and defer the other larger items to a later date.

The intention, subject to exigencies, is to complete these works and reopen the CC  by Q4 2025 or early 2026.

In the period of time since the closure of Eunos CC in September 2022, the Eunos  Cultural Centre has been used to serve residents’ needs and hosting regular community  activities, events, and programmes. This will continue until Eunos CC is re-opened

EXPECTED INCREASE IN PEAK-HOUR TRAIN FREQUENCY ON NORTH EAST LINE WITH PROGRESSIVE ADDITION OF SIX NEW TRAINS

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the  expected increase in peak-hour train frequency on the North-East Line (NEL) with the  progressive addition of six new trains since July 2023 and the recent opening of the  Punggol Coast MRT Station; (b) when will the increased frequency be implemented; and (c) what is the (i) maximum number of trains that can be operating on the NEL and (ii)  minimum interval between trains based on current technical constraints of the NEL.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: With the opening of Punggol Coast station and the addition of  new trains serving the North East Line (NEL), the NEL will be able to support the  operation of a maximum of 42 trains, up from 36 trains.

The Land Transport Authority works with the operator to monitor ridership, and will  adjust NEL frequencies within technical limits to ensure that there is sufficient train  capacity for commuters, taking into consideration the safety and reliability of the train  services. This can vary throughout the day and during different periods of the week and  year.

DEDICATED WORKSPACES IN CAMPS FOR NSMEN TO HANDLE URGENT  WORK DURING IN-CAMP TRAINING

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether the  Ministry has considered creating dedicated workspaces in camps for NSmen during In Camp Training (ICT) to handle urgent work without disrupting training; (b) what  measures are in place to ensure employers do not interrupt NSmen’s ICT obligations with  work-related demands, particularly in roles requiring continuous availability; and (c)  whether the Ministry will review policies to better balance ICT obligations with  professional duties and ensure that NS obligations do not disadvantage Singaporean men  in career progression compared to female and foreign counterparts.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: NSmen are called up for In-Camp Training (ICT) for periods necessary to meet essential operational and training needs. To minimise disruption to  NSmen and their employers, NSmen are typically notified of their call-ups up to six  months in advance so that suitable work coverage arrangements can be planned early. NSmen with critical work commitments during the stipulated ICT period can apply for deferment, and make up for their ICT at a later time.

During their ICT, NSmen who need to address unforeseen or urgent work exigencies are allowed to do so on their own devices in designated non-sensitive areas of the SAF  camps. Wireless@SG is also being progressively installed in SAF camps, which provides  NSmen better connectivity.

NSmen’s duty to perform ICT is backed by legislation. Under the Enlistment Act, employers are required to grant their NSmen employees leave of absence during their ICT period. Employers who contravene the legislative provisions are liable for fines or custodial sentences. MINDEF has not had to take such legal actions against employers  because employers in Singapore understand the critical need for NS and have been supportive of their NSmen employees. In the small number of cases whereby NSmen felt  that they were not supported or discriminated by their employers, the causes were  predominantly misunderstandings or miscommunications which were resolved after MINDEF’s facilitation.

MINDEF also has a range of efforts to further encourage employers to support their  NSmen employees. These include regular engagements as well as recognition of  exemplary employers via the NS Mark accreditation and Total Defence Award.

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION WHEN DATA CENTRES’ CAPACITIES RISE  BY A THIRD AND IMPACT ON SINGAPORE’S GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and  Industry (a) what percentage of total electricity consumption are data centres forecasted  to contribute when capacities increase by at least a third in the coming years; and (b)  whether this increase remains in line with our aim for greenhouse gas emissions to peak  in 2028.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: In May 2024, the Government announced our aim to provide at  least 300 megawatts of additional data centre capacity in the near term and potentially more through low-carbon energy deployments. The growth in capacity is in line with our  projections to peak emissions in 2028.

STORAGE CAPACITY AND COST OF VIDEO AND AUDIO FILES  RECORDED BY POLICE BODY-WORN AND OTHER CAMERAS

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is  the storage capacity needed for data including but not limited to footage and audio for  Police body cameras and other existing Police cameras; (b) what is the cost for such  storage; and (c) what additional storage requirements and costs are estimated for  including recorded video Police interviews.

Mr K Shanmugam: For operational security reasons, the Ministry of Home Affairs does not divulge details of storage capacity for body-worn cameras and other police cameras.

The Member may refer to the Budget Book for the overall project costs for body worn cameras and other police cameras.

KEEPING TRACK OF OR ASSESSING SINGAPORE CITIZENS OR  RESIDENTS PLACED ON INTERPOL’S RED NOTICE

Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government  keeps track of the presence of persons in Singapore who have become the subject of  Interpol Red Notices; (b) how many of such person currently are (i) Singapore Citizens  and (ii) Permanent Residents (PRs); and (c) in the case of such PRs, what is the Government’s approach towards their PR status.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are individuals who are currently wanted persons on Interpol’s Red Notice residing  in Singapore and, if so, what is the number of such individuals; (b) what levels of  monitoring or investigations are imposed on such persons; and (c) whether the requesting  member countries or the individuals’ country of citizenship are notified of their presence in Singapore.

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority conducts checks against the various Interpol notices,  including Red Notices, as part of the routine process for assessing citizenship, permanent residency and work permit applications; and (b) what action is taken if a match is found.

Mr K Shanmugam: The Police closely monitor INTERPOL Notices. An INTERPOL Red Notice is not an arrest warrant, but an international alert for a  wanted person published at the request of a member country. Hence, an INTERPOL Red Notice does not confer the Police with powers to arrest a fugitive wanted by a foreign jurisdiction. The Police would only be able to do so pursuant to an extradition request  made under an extradition treaty.

Nevertheless, we will take action against such persons, if there is sufficient evidence against them to take action in Singapore, and if the offences are such that action can be  taken in Singapore. Depending on the evidence, their immigration facilities may also be revoked, if they are foreigners. When an individual with links to Singapore is the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice, we will keep the individual under close watch, and commence investigations, in the above circumstances. In addition, if such persons who are foreigners are deemed to be an immediate threat to the safety and security of  Singapore, we will take action to remove them from Singapore, including declaring them as prohibited immigrants.

All new applications and renewals for immigration facilities are screened against available adverse information. The presence of any adverse information, including INTERPOL Red Notices, are considered during the assessment.

As at December 2024, about 80 individuals linked to Singapore are traced to INTERPOL Red Notices. About half of them are Singaporeans. About half of them are  not in Singapore. We are unable to share more details as such information comes from  INTERPOL and the issuing countries.

Where the issuing country of an INTERPOL Red Notice has contacted us, our relevant authorities cooperate with them within the ambit of our laws. We may also contact them proactively if we have significant security concerns, or there is sufficient  evidence that offences might have been committed under our laws.

RENOVATION PLANS FOR FUTSAL COURT AND OTHER FACILITIES AT  PETAL GARDENS IN EUNOS WARD OF ALJUNIED GRC

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in view of the state of the sports and community facilities at Petal Gardens in the Eunos ward of  Aljunied GRC (a) when does the People’s Association (PA) plan to renovate and  modernise the futsal court and other facilities there; and (b) whether the Ministry will  consider returning this area to the Town Council for management for community use as it was prior to the year 2011.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The People’s Association (PA) currently leases the  community site at Petal Gardens from the Housing Development Board to run regular community activities for residents at this site.

PA maintains and upkeeps these facilities at Petal Gardens, ensuring they remain  accessible and in good condition for residents’ use. A tender for the cyclical maintenance  and improvement of the facilities at Petal Gardens, including the futsal court, was published on 16 December 2024. It is intended to complete the works by Q1 2026.

The current arrangement has been effective, with Petal Gardens and other  community sites under PA management being well-utilised for regular activities for  residents. PA will continue to ensure that the facilities at Petal Gardens are well maintained, and that community activities are available and accessible to all Eunos residents.

The post Written Answers To WP’s Oral PQs And Written PQs – 7th January 2025 appeared first on The Workers' Party.

Rang undang-undang keadilan ditempat kerja yang dibentang dan yang sedang didebatkan ini amat dinanti-nantikan oleh Masyarakat Singapura terutama bagi golongan-golongan yang lebih mudah terdedah kepada diskriminasi dalam usaha mencari pekerjaan dan juga dalam menjalankan tugasan.

Parti Pekerja telah sekian lama menyuarakan tentang perlunya diadakan undang-undang untuk mengatasi isu diskriminasi di tempat kerja. Kami AP Parti Pekerja serta Masyarakat Singapura berasa lega, setelah sekian lama menunggu Kementerian Tenaga Manusia (MOM) akhirnya mengambil keputusan ini.

Tuan, pada bahagian Tiga rang undang-undang yang bertajuk Ciri-ciri yang dilindungi (Protected Characteristics), klausa 8 ada tertera dan menetapkan ciri-ciri yang dilindungi iaitu umur; kewarganegaraan; jantina, status perkahwinan, status kehamilan dan tanggungjawab menjaga; bangsa, agama dan bahasa; serta kecacatan dan keadaan kesihatan mental. Perlindungan ini merangkumi semua peringkat pekerjaan, termasuk pengambilan pekerja, tempoh pekerjaan dan pemecatan.

Tuan, saya ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk mengaju atau menimbulkan semula keprihatinan Masyarakat Islam Singapura berkenaan unsur-unsur diskriminasi ditempat kerja yang dialami oleh individu-individu muslim khususnya.

Saya akan berkongsi dua senario yang pernah dialami oleh individu-individu muslim Singapura dan ingin dapatkan penjelasan dan kepastian bahawa sememangnya berlaku perbuatan diskriminasi pada kedua-dua senario ini and individu-individu yang terjejas boleh membuat laporan.

Senario pertama adalah berkenaan mengerjakan solat Jumaat bagi individu-individu lelaki muslim.

Satu situasi adalah di mana individu-individu lelaki muslim tidak diterima untuk bekerja semasa sesi temuduga kerana permintaan mereka untuk mengerjakan solat Jumaat tidak dibenarkan oleh pihak syarikat.

Situasi kedua adalah pekerja-pekerja lelaki muslim yang ingin meminta sedikit lebih masa rehat pada hari Jumaat untuk mengerjakan solat jumaat namun tidak diberi kebenaran oleh majikan mereka.

Secara am, banyak agensi-agensi pemerintah dan majikan-majikan di sektor swasta membenarkan individu-individu lelaki muslim untuk mengerjakan solat Jumaat. Namum, masih ada sejumlah atau segelintir yang tidak mengizinkan.

Isu tentang memberi kebenaran untuk mengerjakan solat Jumaat ini pernah diluahkan oleh mantan anggota parlimen Encik Zainal Sapari menerusi platform media sosial beliau.

Perkongsian Encik Zainal Sapari mengenai perkara ini telah mendapat liputan media dalam talian Mothership bertarikh 17 July 2019 yang bertajuk “MP Zainal Bin Sapari suggests S’pore employers give Muslim men time off for Friday Mosque prayers”.

Encik Zainal Sapari, yang sekarang memegang jawatan Penolong Setiausha Agung (Assistant Secretary General) di Kongres Kesatuan Sekerja Kebangsaan (NTUC), mengatakan beliau telah di datangi oleh pekerja-pekerja lelaki muslim yang menghadapi kesukaran dalam mendapatkan kebenaran dari syarikat atau majikan mereka untuk mengerjakan solat Jumaat. Beliau mengatakan “it would be much appreciated if employers could grant male muslim workers time off between 12.30pm to 2.30pm to go to the mosques”.

Dalam catatan atau posting facebook yang sama, Enk Zainal Sapari juga menerangkan tentang kewajiban mengerjakan solat Jumaat oleh para lelaki muslim dan beliau juga memberi satu pandangan menjelaskan bahawa para pekerja juga harus “menebus kerugian dalam masa syarikat” dengan datang bekerja lebih awal sedikit, atau keluar lewat pada hari itu.

Senario yang kedua adalah satu keadaan yang telah mendapat perhatian ramai sekian lama, iaitu tentang pemakaian tudung. Selama bertahun-tahun, akan kedengaran sesekali luahan atau laporan tentang individu-individu Muslimah menghadapi situasi dimana mereka diminta untuk tanggalkan tudung jika ingin diterima bekerja atau setelah mereka memulakan pekerjaan.

Perkara ini ada dinyatakan dalam laporan Suara Musyawarah yang diterbitkan pada 2013. Laporan Suara Musyawarah ini dihasilkan oleh sebuah jawatankuasa bebas yang tidak berpihak yang dibentuk oleh pihak pemerintah yang berobjektif  mengumpulkan maklum-balas serta keprihatinan dan aspirasi Masyarakat Melayu/Islam Singapura.   

Pada halaman atau muka surat 21 perenggan 32 laporan bahasa Melayu Suara Musyawarah ini, saya nukil “Jawatankuasa ini juga telah mendengar beberapa pengalaman peribadi yang memberi andaian bahawa diskriminasi juga diamalkan dari segi pekerjaan. Contoh-contoh peribadi termasuk para majikan yang mengatakan dengan jelas bahawa pilihan mereka adalah pekerja bukan Melayu dan wanita Islam pula diketepikan atau diberitahu secara terus-terang bahawa mereka tidak dibenarkan memakai tudung”.

Tuan, laporan Suara Musyawarah ini adalah hasil tahun 2013, hampir 12 tahun yang lalu, dan maklum balas yang telah dikumpulkan berkemungkinan adalah kejadian-kejadian yang telah berlaku beberapa tahun sebelum 2013. Malah pengalaman yang sedemikian pernah dialami oleh isteri saya pada tahun 2000 dimana beliau hampir diterima bekerja disebuah pusat bahasa swasta (language centre) namun dengan satu syarat iaitu tidak boleh bertudung.

Melangkah kehadapan, satu insiden yang terbaru yang mendapat perhatian ramai termasuk Puan Halimah Yacob, yang menyandang jawatan presiden pada masa itu, adalah sebuah kes yang berlaku pada tahun 2020. Ia membabitkan seorang pekerja Wanita muslim  sebuah gedung serbaneka yang terkenal dimana individu ini telah disuruh untuk menanggalkan tudungnya beberapa minit selepas beliau baru memulakan pekerjaan pada hari yang pertama.

Dalam kes ini, seperti dilaporkan dalam media, Puan Halimah menyatakan dengan tegas “there is no place for discrimination of any form and against anyone in Singapore” iaitu “tidak ada tempat untuk diskriminasi dalam apa jua bentuk dan terhadap sesiapa pun di Singapura”.

Tuan, sebagai rumusan saya ingin mendapatkan kepastian dari Kementerian Tenaga Manusia bahawa kedua-kedua senario yang telah saya kongsikan iaitu berkenaan tidak memberi kebenaran untuk mengerjakan solat Jumaat bagi lelaki muslim dan penggunaan tudung bagi wanita muslim diiktiraf sebagai amalan diskriminasi di tempat kerja di bawah rang undang-undang ini.

(English Translation)

Sir,

The workplace fairness bill that was presented and is being debated is highly anticipated by the Singaporean community, especially for segment of our society that are more susceptible to discrimination in their efforts to find a job and also their course of employment.

For a long period of time, the Workers’ Party has been calling for the need for legislation addressing the issue of workplace discrimination. The Workers’ Party and Singaporeans are relieved, after waiting for so long for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to finally take this decision.

Sir, part three of the bill entitled Protected Characteristics, clause 8 specifies the protected characteristics which are age; nationality; gender, marital status, pregnancy status and caring responsibilities; race, religion and language; as well as disabilities and mental health conditions. This covers all stages of employment, including hiring, tenure and termination.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to raise or resurface the concerns of  Muslim community regarding discrimination in the workplace experienced by Muslim individuals in particular.

I will share two scenarios that have been experienced by Muslim individuals in Singapore and would like to get a certainty and affirmation that there is indeed an act of discrimination in both of these scenarios and a report can be lodged.

The first scenario is about performing Friday prayers for individual Muslim men.

One situation is where Muslim men are not accepted to work during the interview session because their request to perform Friday prayers is not allowed by the company.

The second situation is Muslim male employees who want to request a little more time off on Fridays to perform Friday prayers but are not given permission by their employers.

In general, many government agencies and employers in the private sector allow Muslim male individuals to perform Friday prayers. However, there are still some who do not allow it.

The issue was once shared by a former member of parliament Mr. Zainal Sapari through his social media platform.

Mr. Zainal Sapari’s sharing on this matter was covered by the Mothership dated 17 July 2019 titled “MP Zainal Bin Sapari suggests S’pore employers give Muslim men time off for Friday Mosque prayers”[i].

Mr Zainal Sapari, who currently holds the position of Assistant General Secretary at the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), said he has been approached by male Muslim workers who are facing difficulties in obtaining permission from their employer to perform Friday prayer. It was reported that he said “it would be much appreciated if employers could grant male muslim workers time off between 12.30pm to 2.30pm to go to the mosques”.

In the same Facebook post, Enk Zainal Sapari also explained about the obligation of Muslim men to perform Friday prayers and he also gave a view explaining that “employees should also “make up for the loss in company time” by coming to work a little earlier, or out late that day”.

The second scenario is a situation that has received a lot of attention for years, which is about wearing a tudung. Over the years, there have been occasional reports of Muslim individuals facing situations where they are asked to remove the tudung if they want to be accepted for work or after they commence work.

This matter was stated in the Suara Musyawarah report published in 2013. Suara Musyawarah report was produced by an independent, non-partisan committee formed by the government to objectively gather feedback as well as the concerns and aspirations of the Singapore Malay/Muslim community.

On page 21 of paragraph 32 of the Suara Musyawarah Malay report (page 18 para. 32 for English report), I quote “This committee has also heard some personal experiences that suggest that discrimination is also practiced in terms of employment. Personal examples include employers making it clear that their preference is for non-Malay workers and Muslim women being sidelined or told outright that they are not allowed to wear Tudung”.

Sir, this Suara Musyawarah report was published in 2013, almost 12 years ago, and the responses that have been gathered are likely to be events that happened years before 2013. In fact, my wife had such an experience in 2000 where she almost accepted to work in a language center but with one condition that she has to take off her tudung.

Fast forward, a more recent incident that attracted the attention of many including Mdm Halimah Yacob, who was Singapore’s president at the time, was a case that occurred in 2020. It involved a Muslim female employee of a well-known department store where this individual was told to remove her tudung right after she commenced work on her first day.

In this case, as reported in the media, Mdm Halimah stated firmly “there is no place for discrimination of any form and against anyone in Singapore”[ii].

Sir, as a summary I would like to obtain certainty and affirmation from the Ministry of Manpower that the two scenarios that I have shared, Muslim men not been given permission to perform Friday prayers and the prohibition in the use of tudung for Muslim women, are indeed among the discriminatory practices in the workplace under this bill.

[i] https://mothership.sg/2019/07/mp-friday-mosque-prayers-time-off/

[ii] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/discrimination-has-no-place-in-singapore-society-president-halimah

The post Workplace Fairness Bill – 7th January 2025 – Speech By Faisal Manap appeared first on The Workers' Party.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill but would like to speak on the proposal to remove or lower mandatory minimum sentences.  Essentially today’s amendments will remove the mandatory minimum sentence and disqualification period for first-time offenders who are convicted of dangerous or careless driving offenders. The mandatory minimum sentence for such repeat offenders will be halved.

In justifying the reason for the amendments, MHA has in its advisory in November 2024 explained that today’s amendments were part of their regular review, the last being done in 2019. We are told that the amendment is required as there is a need to adjust the Act to balance deterrence and proportionality,

which are applicable sentencing principles which the Court will abide by. Importantly, MHA has explained that the changes will ensure that behaviour that is relatively less egregious is not overly penalised, while the law can still be used to penalise egregious offenders. For example, the court will be able to give lighter sentences where other road users have also behaved irresponsibly.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think there are different responses to the proposed changes. On one hand, there are Singaporeans who are concerned that the removal of the minimum sentences will represent a relaxation of the laws on careless or reckless driving.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, such concerns may be understandable especially bearing in mind recent high profile serious road traffic accidents such as the road accident at the junction of Tampines Avenue 1 and Tampines Avenue 4 on 22 April 2024 where a driver failed to stop at a traffic junction and caused an accident involving 5 other vehicles and leading to the unfortunate death of 2 persons. 

It was also reported more recently on 18 December 2024 that a driver was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and disqualified for 8 years after he pleaded guilty to 3 charges of causing death of a pedestrian in October 2022 by driving without due care and attention, failing to render assistance and obstructing the course of justice. The driver was previously fined $500 and handed 12 demerit points for speeding just a month before the fatal accident.  The victim, a 26-year-old pharmacist, was a Hougang resident of mine.

In fact, in light of similar serious traffic incidents in recent years, some Singaporeans have asked whether we should enhance our laws to deter reckless driving and serious road accidents. Following the accident at Tampines Avenue 1, I and some other members of this house have asked questions, and the Government addressed some of such concerns in Parliament in May 2024. I trust that the Government will assure such Singaporeans today that the proposed changes in this Bill will not lead to a relaxation of the law or the enforcement efforts for careless or reckless driving and result in a worsening of the existing situation.

Under this Bill, the prosecution will be able to proceed with a charge of causing “hurt” and not “grievous hurt”, even if the victim’s injuries meet the legal definition of grievous hurt. Grievous hurt is defined under Section 320 of the Penal Code and it can include fractures or dislocations, and when the victim cannot follow his or her ordinary pursuits for at least 20 days.

MHA had explained that the change under this Bill would better allow the prosecution to take into account the nature of the injury caused and whether other road users share responsibility for the incident.

The definition of a repeat offender will also be narrowed. Currently, a motorist is a repeat offender if he or she has been convicted previously of any one of the following: dangerous or careless driving, conducting illegal speed trials, or speeding.

The Bill proposes that a motorist facing a dangerous or careless driving charge will only be considered a repeat offender vis-a-vis his speeding convictions only if he or she:

• Has at least two prior speeding convictions in which the driver sped in excess of 40kmh of the road’s or the vehicle’s speed limit, and
• At least two of the prior speeding convictions occurred within the past five years before the motorist’s current driving offence.

May I ask the MOS to explain the rationale for the limit of previous speeding in excess of 40km/h and not any less e.g. why not in excess of say 20-39 km/h? I ask this as some  Singaporeans would regard speeding in excess of lower speed ranges such as between 20-39 or even 30-39 km/h to be already excessive and deserving of the current minimum punishment under the present law.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, such views are understandable;  Singapore still suffers from a significant number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.According to the SPF’s Police Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023, Singapore suffered about 136 deaths in 2023 due to road traffic accidents. Road traffic accidents in 2023 also caused 8931 people to suffer non-fatal injuries.

According to the Police Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023, road traffic fatalities have increased year-on-year since 2020 (from a low of 83 during COVID to 136 in 2023); the current number of annual fatalities are also higher than the pre-COVID numbers (136 in 2023 vs 118 in 2019). Similarly, the traffic accident cases involving injuries have similarly increased year-on-year since 2020 (from 6669 in 2020 to 8931 in 2023).

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would also like to ask the MOS, beyond the proposed amendments, do the authorities have any other plans to curb the continuing increase in the number of accident cases involving fatalities and injuries in the next few years?

The MHA also mentioned two past cases justifying the Government’s intention to remove minimal sentences.  The first case involves a taxi driver who fails to conform to a red traffic light signal at a T-junction and collides into an oncoming motorcar which has the right of way. The victim sustains neck and shoulder pain, with numbness in one half of his body, and receives 25 days of MC, but a subsequent medical assessment finds that the victim has made a full recovery. Because the victim has received at least 20 days of MC, and Section 320 of the Penal Code defines grievous hurt as, among other things, any hurt that causes the victim to be unable to follow his or her ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days. This meant that the injury to the victim in the cited case was regarded as grievous hurt under the law. This is notwithstanding that the overall injury suffered was not actually that severe having regard to the initial injury report and the victim’s full recovery. The driver who caused the injury was upon conviction, subject to a mandatory minimum of 1 year’s imprisonment and 8 years disqualification.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also critics who may feel that the removal of the mandatory minimum sentencing should be objected to on other grounds. For example, the driver in the first example may be regarded as objectively reckless in running the red light and it may be argued that, whether the victim is more or less injured is just a matter of fortuity.

Another criticism is that the problem may not be the minimum sentence itself but the definition of grievous hurt under s320 of the Penal Code especially as we now see how it has applied to the Road Traffic Act e.g. the factual scenario seen in the first example cited by MHA.  Further, there is also the issue of whether the length of an MC necessarily commensurate with the seriousness of the injury caused or has a definitive bearing on say permanent incapacity?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are also Singaporeans who agree with the proposed amendments and take the view that the court should have a wider judicial discretion which will enable the courts to punish more appropriately in accordance with the circumstances of each case. A more restricted discretion may result in drivers being penalised unnecessarily or unnecessarily harshly. In some cases, the punishment may have more serious consequences or resulting in loss of job and/or deprivation of employment income and resulting financial hardship.

Mr Speaker, as a lawyer, I have full confidence that our courts will ultimately be able to achieve the desirable calibration between different cases when exercising their discretion. It is, however, important for the courts to create clear guidelines after the law is amended so that drivers are punished more appropriately according to what they have done but are not overly punished. I am therefore heartened to hear the MOS sharing with this house that this will be carried out by the courts.   

I also agree with MHA’s explanation in their second example where a driver collided with a cyclist who failed to give way to the driver and crossed the road. I am of the view that in accidents where both a driver and an injured road user failed to give way to each other or were both guilty of different traffic offences resulting in a collision, MHA should not over-penalise one party merely because another party was physically injured. Using the second case example given by MHA, the primary consideration upon which punishment should be imposed should first be the primary wrongfulness, if any, of both parties leading to the accident, rather than merely the cyclist being injured. In MHA’s example, there is the failure of the cyclist to stop and give way and there is also the failure of the driver to keep a proper look out for a cyclist in breach of the cyclist’s own legal obligations. There should be greater and appropriate proportionality given to both road users for their respective breaches.  

Mr Speaker, we do see many cyclists breaking the law by not following traffic lights or road traffic rules, and this is something I have spoken about in the past. If they are more seriously taken to task when they are found to be in breach, this may encourage a change in our riding culture on the roads and enhance the safety of our roads and accidents can be minimized or prevented.

Further, it is not uncommon for parties involved in accidents to latch on to the TP’s charges against particular motorists to argue that their opponents’ case may be weaker. If successful, this together with the law of contributory negligence, may mean that in the ensuing civil claims, a motorist may be the ultimate paying party in such a case where another road user ( and this can be a motorist too) who also blatantly breaks the law, is injured.

Mr Speaker, I would next like to share some feedback from our residents. One of our residents, a first-time offender with 45 years of unblemished records, shared that he was charged for Careless Driving Causing Grievous Hurt under Section 65(1)(b) of the RTA. The accident involved a side swipe with a motorcyclist resulting in the latter suffering a fracture. Our resident was fined $4000 and sentenced under the mandatory disqualification regime to 60 months and still has to serve a remaining period of 29 months. Our resident would like to know whether people like him, who were previously sentenced to the mandatory disqualification regime under the existing law will be allowed to have their period of disqualification reduced.

Another resident said that with the change, there may be the anomaly arising from those who were more recently punished under RTA 2019 coming out from their disqualification periods even later than those who may be sentenced under RTA 2024 in the near future.

Given the change in law and the rationale given by MHA for the change, there may be an issue of fairness as such. Will the Government address the above concerns? 

Mr Speaker, we also have feedback from residents regarding the harshness of such offence being a registrable offence and for a 5 year period. The argument is that such offences should be distinguished from other crimes if such offences arose purely as an accident, that there was no deliberate intent to break the law or to commit the offence, and there was no premeditation. There may be consequences or burdens on the convicted in terms of employment or travel when declarations for such convictions are required.  I hope MHA will consider this feedback.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns and feedback I have raised as well as the clarifications I have, I support the Bill.

The post The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill – 7th January 2025 – Speech By Dennis Tan appeared first on The Workers' Party.

I will make two main points. First, given the eroding distinction between frauds and scams, I wonder whether the definition of scams covered by the Bill is sufficient. Second, in light of how the Bill represents a significant intrusion into private transactions, I wonder if there is room to further constrain the application of ROs.

The distinction between fraud and scams is fading

Let me start by explaining how many observers perceive a difference between frauds and scams. Fraud is the result of deception. A malicious actor obtains personal information without the victim’s knowledge or consent, and proceeds to use said information for financial gain. Scams, in contrast, occur when an unwitting victim is manipulated to either voluntarily release such information, or—in the most egregious cases—abet the process altogether, with active cash withdrawals or fund transfers.

As observers, we are often inclined to place the blame for fraud on the provider, and scams on the consumer. Hence, we think of how financial institutions or telecommunications companies can step up their surveillance of fraudulent schemes or ads, to plug security holes in their back-end systems, to contain fraudulent activity. This has, indeed, been the focus of the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF),[2] where guidelines underscore how the duties and responsibilities of the bank or telco tend to be limited to actions taken when fraudulent activity is detected and ascertained. If the consumer subsequently authorizes the transaction, however, then these institutions are absolved of their share of the loss, since they would  have already taken reasonable steps to stop the said transaction.

There is often less sympathy for those who fall victim to scams. Many claim that victims are too naïve, too greedy, or too careless. Surely, if they stepped back and simply thought through the moment carefully, they would not fall prey to the wily  scammers. Or worse, they are frequently viewed as willing participants who should be punished to learn their lesson. They need to recognize that 20 year-olds who connect with 80 year-olds aren’t really there because of true love, or that it isn’t possible to double your money in the span of a few months by lending it to a cash-strapped entrepreneur, returns guaranteed.

The problem, however, is that this distinction, while appealing in theory, is both artificial and misleading in practice. Let me offer a few real-life examples to illustrate my point.

Those holding credit or debit cards may have inadvertently used them at a terminal with a skimmer installed, or exposed their card to a radio frequency identification (RFID) device. The card then gets cloned, and the clone is either used directly to make purchases, or the relevant information is sold on the dark web. Syndicates have also become sophisticated in testing the waters, effecting one or two small transactions that may easily be missed in a sea of transactions, or by sending packages to the actual address. Verified “live” cards are then used for large purchases, usually in foreign jurisdictions with weak scammer protection laws. Has the consumer been defrauded here, as one could argue, since they never approved these purchases? Or is it a scam, since it could be argued that their indifference in response to the test transactions implies their acquiescence to the larger scheme?

As another example, consider an investment scam, disseminated as an ad through a social media platform. The scammer would have paid for the ad—and in many cases, an ad targeted at a potentially vulnerable demographic—and the text of the ad may well include disclaimer language about the “opportunity.” So it seems straightforward: surely someone who “invests” in, say, a villa in Cambodia, or a business in Thailand, understands the associated risks. But these scammers do not always propose overt gambles of this nature. In our meet-the-people sessions, we’ve encountered residents that were duped by offers of a tour in Malaysia, offered at a discount. Or the promise of a job, which involves specialized pre-training for a fee. From the vantage of  the social media platform, these may seem legitimate—and, unsurprisingly, the social media company would have a financial interest to classify them as such—yet, when revealed to be a scam, the provider is often reluctant (or outright refuses) to take down the ad. Is this a scam or fraud? It exploits the victim’s desire to secure a good deal or a job, which makes it closer to a scam. Yet it embeds elements of deception, such as hidden fine print or bait-and-switch tactics, which make them more akin to fraud.

Of course, there is yet another possibility, often cited by defenders of the status quo: That scammers may pose as victims, to try to defraud financial institutions. Such conspiracies are, of course, criminal. But what if the line between collaborating to deceive and a plea for assistance is less clear? We are certainly acquainted with cases where, in the name of love or compassion, someone is asked to help with hospital expenses for a person, or their child. Is this a scam, or a cry for help, or something in between? And while it is an empirical question whether such activities are actually as widespread as feared (or would become so, if a more robust consumer protection framework were put in place), it is nevertheless true that practices of this nature tend to blur the line between scams and fraud, and the sort of give-and-take common to relationships.

The artificial line between frauds and scams therefore places an even more pressing onus on the formulation of laws that adequately protect Singaporeans from the scourge of both. We should not simply default to the necessary—but absolutely insufficient—calls for consumers to exercise more cyber hygiene, while standing pat with more robust legislation.

Is it sufficient to treat scams as instances of cheating?

Relatedly, the current treatment of scams in the ambit of the law appears imperfect. Scams are defined in the Schedule as offenses falling under Sections 416A, 417, 418, 419, 420, 420A, an 420A and B of the Penal Code 1871.[3] We can cross-reference this against guidelines issued by the Sentencing Advisory Panel for scam-related offenses,[4] which touch on Sections 51 and 55A of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking, and Other Serious Crimes Act,[5] Sections 8A and B of the Computer Misuse Act,[6] and Section 420 of the Penal Code. The overlap is Section 420 of the Penal Code.

If we treat this as encompassing the full scope of how scams will be addressed by the proposed law, then the sort of scams that would trigger the issuance of restriction orders are those associated with cheating behavior.[7] The key question, then, is if this is sufficient for prosecuting the sort of scams experienced in the real world, given the examples cited above.

After all, as already mentioned, scams could be designed such that the fraud intent is either not immediately evident, or justifiable. Love, job, and investment scams could be framed as genuine pursuits, with the perpetrator undertaking actions—disclaimers to risky investments, a nominal amount of useless training, or a genuine medical bill—that would justify the request for money, and its subsequent transfer.

Furthermore, the most successful scams often involve confidence-building measures that exploit known weaknesses in human psychology[8] or emotion,[9] to an extent that victims may even refuse to acknowledge or believe that they are being duped, even when the scam may appear evident to external parties. Many remain in denial well after the fact,[10] or refuse to face the reality of their losses head-on.[11] Is this cheating any more, if an individual truly wants to proceed with an action, even when presented with evidence to the contrary? When even experts and professionals that do this for a living may be duped,[12] how can we be assured that the police will have special insight or clarity, in advance, into what does or does not constitute a scam? Will the RO only be activated when the police is able to successfully peg the case to a known scammer or organization?

And if we accept this inherent uncertainty, how will we be certain that ROs will be effective in instances where scammers are not immediately recognized, especially in an age of artificial intelligence, where the online signature of a potential scammer may be masked by extreme personalization and customization,[13] otherwise known as deepfishing? What if the 30-day freeze period activated by Clause 5 of the Bill simply postpones the inevitable? Would the knowledge that a scammed victim plans to remain resolute in their insistence on a monetary transfer ultimately undermine the intent of the law?

The Shared Responsibility Framework doesn’t even protect against fraud well

To be clear, existing laws and regulations are admittedly incomplete, which is precisely why efforts like the current Bill appear necessary. Even if we focus more narrowly on the notion of fraud, the existing framework offers scant protection for the consumer. This is a matter that the Workers’ Party has previously spoken up about.[14] In particular, we believe that the way the Shared Responsibility Framework doles out the burden for dealing with fraud and scams remains incomplete at best, and ineffectual, at worst.

For instance, the responsibilities of telcos in the SRF are currently only limited to texts via Short Message Service (SMS), perhaps due to known vulnerabilities in the system. But can telcos do more? After all, I am sure that many of us have received calls from what appears to be local numbers, phishing for details in a foreign accent. If indeed these are locally-registered numbers (rather than spoofed ones), and these numbers have been reported to ScamShield, could the police use registration documentation to preemptively pursue these scammers?

Moreover, scams are often disseminated via alternative communications channels, such as WhatsApp messages, social media post or ads, and direct messages on social media platforms. So while phishing texts that seek to prod potential victims into clicking through malicious links or fake websites do exist, the more nefarious scamming attempts of late are reliant on social engineering and establishing relationships, more scam than fraud.

Perhaps more concerning is how the SRF relieves financial institutions from solely bearing the burden of fraud so long as they fulfill a checklist of seemingly-reasonable actions. These include instituting cooling-off periods, real-time notifications of risky transactions, a self-reporting tool for freezing accounts, and a fraud detection system. These are, surely, valuable measures. But they cannot cover reasonable eventualities where the customer does not appear to be much at fault.

One example, based on an experience that I believe many in this House would share, is when a resident encounters an unrecognized transaction in their account. Typically, when they discover such charges on their credit card, they would simply call the bank. The institution would freeze the card, issue a new one, and perform an investigation on the matter, after which (in most cases) the errant transaction would be struck off. Unfortunately, when the charge is on a debit card, things get more complicated. In principle, such transactions would have required some sort of additional PIN verification, which would make fraud far more unlikely. But the rise of contactless payments means that the embedded RFID chip in the card performs the same security function, which negates the need for the PIN. This has permitted fraud of this nature to emerge, via RFID skimming. While the cardholder could certainly take additional steps to protect their phone or cards from such skimming attempts, to me, it is a stretch to claim that the fault lies with the customer, and that they should bear the burden of such unauthorized transactions.

As another example, consider how many banks deal with unrecognized transactions that are reported. The process will usually entail a freeze and an investigation, as I explained earlier. But the investigation itself is opaque, and I’m sure Members will also have residents, as I have, that have reported errant transactions expeditiously, only to be subsequently told that the appeal was unsuccessful, and that they would need to then carry the cost of these charges, even if they had no clue as to how they incurred them.

As a final example, think about how often we receive calls from individuals claiming to be officers from a financial institution. These days, many such calls are fraudulent, and seek to illegitimately obtaining the accountholder’s personal information. But when customers do not have telephone banking set up, they are often asked a series of security questions, in lieu of the passcode or PIN. Even if these questions do not rely on the NRIC—which, as the recent BizFile fiasco has demonstrated, is insecure—the answers to these questions may potentially be obtained by any sufficiently motivated investigator. And on the flip side, it is far from clear how, as customers, we can verify that the caller is from a financial institution. I have, on more than one occasion, challenged an actual call from an officer from my bank, and the absence of equivalent mechanisms to verify the legitimacy of the caller was made amply clear.

All this to say that the SRF, as currently conceived, has offered accountholders scant protection from even instances of fraud, even when customers make good-faith efforts to protect themselves. What more scams, which are more sophisticated in design, and target the most vulnerable among us.

Granting trusted administrators the right to issue ROs instead

Hence, there is clearly more work to be done to protect consumers. Even so, there are reasons to have reservations about whether this manner by which the proposed Bill goes about this task. One may be uncomfortable, specifically, with how the Bill grants law enforcement an enormous amount of latitude to intervene and restrict what is, ultimately, a private transaction.

While there is no perfect solution—and, to be clear, I recognize the well-meaning nature of the effort—I wonder if the law may also exercise flexibility in its application. For instance, is it possible for banks to offer individuals the right to designate a trusted administrator—perhaps a close friend or relative—the full authority to freeze transactions for up to 30 days, in lieu of the police? This would be similar in spirit to a grant of a letter of administration, albeit in a more limited sense. It would also essentially be an extension of the existing Money Lock feature,[15] which already covers 61,000 accounts and $5.4 billion in savings,[16] to designate a third party as an authorized person with the ability to corroborate a genuine withdrawal intent.[17]

Conclusion

Sir, the blurring lines between scams and fraud means that efforts to tackle the scourge of online and offline thievery requires more innovative mechanisms that account for human psychology and behavior. The ROs put forward by this Bill are one way forward. I have expressed some reservations over their intrusiveness, and hope that there will be some exit option for those who, ex ante, insist on opting out. I also urge the government to not be content with this measure alone, but to continue refining the Shared Responsibility Framework to build an ecosystem that is more resilient to scmas and fraud. That said, on balance, I support of the Bill.

[1] SPF (2024), Annual Scams and Cybercrime Brief 2023, Singapore: Singapore Police Force.

[2] MAS & IMDA (2024), Guidelines on Shared Responsibility Framework, Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore and Infocomm Media Development Authority.

[3] Penal Code 1871 (2020).

[4] Sentencing Advisory Panel (2024), Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences, Singapore: Sentencing Advisory Panel.

[5] Corruption, Drug Trafficking, and Other Serious Crimes Act (2020) 1992.

[6] Computer Misuse Act (2020) 1993.

[7] The remaining sections of the code that are covered by the Bill also deal with cheating (Sec. 416–419). Fraudulent deeds are addressed in Sec. 421–424.

[8] Liu, X.F., Y. Ai, C. Jiang, X. Wang & Y. Wu (2024), “Understanding the Human Element in Scams: A Multidisciplinary Approach,” Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, pp. 1–16.

[9] Chia, O. (2022), “Scam Victims Often Manipulated into Thinking ‘Emotively’: Experts,” Straits Times, Jul 18.

[10] Chua, N. (2024), “‘We Couldn’t Save Her from Herself’: How Scam Victim Went from $130k in Savings to $600 in 2 Months,” Straits Times, Nov 24.

[11] Sun, D. (2024), “‘I Don’t Want to Know How Much I’ve lost’: Scam Victim Who Transferred $1.19m to Syndicate,” Straits Times, Nov 30.

[12] Wood, S. (2023), “Scammed: Why the Rich, Famous, and Experts Get Duped,” Psychology Today, Feb 9.

[13] Franklin, J., S. Gandel & A. Quinio (2024), ”Who Should Foot the Bill for Cyber Scams?”, Financial Times, Dec 11.

[14] Hansard (2023) 95(111): Sep 18; Hansard (2024) 95(119): Jan 10.

[15] Leow, W.X. (2024), “How to Protect Funds Against Scams Using Money Lock,” Straits Times, Mar 12.

[16] Hansard (2024) 95(127): Feb 29.

[17] An alternative is for the police accept an opt-out directive, made in advance by the accountholder, for the issuance of ROs, which would preserve individual sovereignty over the manner by which they handle their own monies.

The post Can the Government Protect People from Themselves? – 7th January 2025 – Speech By Jamus Lim appeared first on The Workers' Party.