Author: Gerald Giam

Will the high resale flat prices that we have seen in recent years push up the value of BTO flats and impact the price that Singaporeans pay for these flats, or does HDB increase subsidies to completely offset the increase in land valuation due to this factor?

This was a question I asked Minister for National Development Desmond Lee today. 

I had earlier asked a related question: What is the differential that the Chief Valuer applies to land used for public housing compared to that for private housing?

I also asked the Minister: How does the Government ensure in practice that the Chief Valuer is able to make his valuation decisions completely independently and that no one attempts to influence his decisions?

I asked this because the Chief Valuer’s decision on the valuation of a piece of land has a great impact on the amount that Singaporeans have to pay for their HDB flats. The current Chief Valuer is concurrently an Assistant Commissioner heading the Property Tax Division in the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore.

The Minister’s answers will be published in the Hansard.

——————

*4017. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for National Development in determining the value of land that will be used to build HDB BTO flats (a) what is the differential that the Chief Valuer applies to land used for public housing compared to that for private housing; and (b) whether the private housing land use comparables used to value land for HDB BTO flats are based on the records of the last transacted private residential land sold by the Government and private parties.

28 Nov 2022

The Government has decided to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. Since these plans were first revealed, many Aljunied GRC residents have reached out to me to express their views about this issue.

Residents spoke to me during my house-to-house visits, came to my Meet-the-People Sessions, sent me WhatsApp messages, emails and petitions, and wrote detailed letters explaining their arguments. Several invited me to their homes where they gathered their friends and family to passionately express their concerns and urge me to raise them in Parliament. 

These included representations from members of the LGBT community who see section 377A as a law that discriminates against them and victimises them, and who support its repeal. I acknowledge these sentiments as they cut to the core of who members of the LGBT community see themselves.

My constituents’ feedback can be grouped into several, sometimes overlapping categories:

First, there are concerns that the repeal of section 377A will remove an important societal marker and open the door to an erosion of traditional values in our society.

Second, some are worried that after this law is repealed, there will be a domino effect on other regulations and policies leading towards a normalisation of homosexuality in our society — from changes to sexuality education in schools, to more liberal media portrayals, and eventually the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

Third, many, especially those from the younger age groups, are concerned that as the societal narrative shifts, they will find it harder to freely express their own beliefs without being labelled as homophobic. They worry about getting “cancelled” or suffering discrimination in school or at the workplace because of their beliefs.

Fourth, some have expressed concerns that the higher health risks of some types of sexual practices are not being adequately communicated to young people for fear of sounding discriminatory.

Fifth, others are worried that the disruption to the current equilibrium will lead to increased advocacy by groups on both sides and spark the type of “culture wars” seen in some other nations, which will present challenges to Singapore’s national cohesion.

Sixth, some have argued that the LGBT community is already disadvantaged by the laws that support a heteronormative family and that repealing section 377A does not confer any tangible disadvantages on those who oppose the change. These residents are of the view that section 377A should be repealed.

Seventh, residents on both sides of the debate have cited the need to “live and let live”, and called for greater tolerance for different views. 

These are diverse and often opposing positions on what is clearly a very controversial issue. Those on one end of the spectrum rue the day that this marker is removed, while those on the other end see it as one of many social changes they wish to see in our country. I have also noticed a large middle ground which does not have strong opinions on this issue, and is more concerned with bread-and-butter issues.

There is in fact some agreement on both sides of the divide. Both agree that section 377A bears significant symbolic weight in our society. They both also anticipate that the repeal of section 377A will open the door to many more challenges to the prevailing norms in our society.

These are all valid concerns and sincere feedback expressed by Singaporeans, all of whom have the interests of our nation at heart. They included young, middle aged and older Singaporeans.

Listening to constituents on both sides of this contentious debate presented challenges for me on how to raise them both in this House. I see it as my responsibility as a Member of Parliament to reflect the feedback and concerns of my constituents in this House. However, as an elected representative, I will also need to take a stand to vote on these Bills. 

My vote will be based first and foremost on what I believe to be in the best long-term interests of our nation. This will take into consideration the viewpoints of my constituents and my own conscience.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my sincere belief that retaining section 377A without enforcing it provides the best balance of the conflicting interests in our society. 

I have come to agree with what the Prime Minister said in Parliament on 23 October 2007, when he explained that the Government was retaining section 377A but not proactively enforcing it. 

This was, to quote the Court of Appeal, a “political compromise” that was “conceived with the express intention of accommodating divergent interests, avoiding polarisation and facilitating incremental change.”

Attorney-General Lucien Wong took further steps in 2018 by noting that the Police will not proactively enforce section 377A, for instance by conducting enforcement raids. He added that the Public Prosecutor has taken the position that prosecution of two consenting adults in a private place under section 377A, absent other factors, would not be in the public interest. This assurance was strengthened when the Court of Appeal ruled in February 2022 that section 377A is “unenforceable in its entirety” unless and until the Public Prosecutor of the day provides clear notice that he intends to reassert his right to enforce section 377A proactively by way of prosecution and will no longer abide by the representations made by Attorney-General Wong in 2018. 

Section 377A is therefore no longer a sword of Damocles hanging over men in same-sex relationships. They will not be prosecuted or convicted under section 377A for consensual sexual acts done in private. Furthermore, 377A has never criminalised same-sex attraction between men or same-sex relations between women.

Conscience vote

The final reason for the vote I am about to cast is that my conscience does not allow me to vote in favour of a repeal of section 377A. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for lifting the Whip on Workers’ Party MPs for the vote on both Bills. This permits WP MPs to cast “conscience votes” on these Bills.

Sir, I entered politics almost 14 years ago because I wanted to contribute to the democratic development of our country and propose policies that would improve the welfare of our people. It is important to me, and the example I set for my children, that I hold fast to the values that I have established to be true, without wavering because of political headwinds.

While some, especially those in the LGBT community and many of my friends, residents, Party members and volunteers, may strongly disagree with my position, I hope they will accept that these are my sincerely held values which I am trying my best to uphold. My vote is not an attack on their values or a diminishing of their humanity in any way.

Some have criticised me for allowing my faith to inform my vote in Parliament, arguing that the two should be kept separate. However, what one Member, informed by their faith and conscience, believes to be in the best interest of the country in some issues may differ from what another Member believes. This issue is certainly one of such issues.

I have been told in my face by a constituent that he will not vote for me in future because of my stand on this issue. I accept the importance that many Singaporeans place on their elected MPs’ positions on these Bills, to the extent that it will be a factor in their decision at the polls. However, I hope Singaporeans will consider the broader issues at hand. There are too many important issues that affect the lives of Singaporeans for one’s vote to be decided based on this single issue.

Unity in diversity

Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been one of the most difficult speeches for me to prepare. I was worried that I may come across as prejudiced against members of the LGBT community. Hand on heart, I am not. LGBT persons are our fellow human beings, worthy of the same amount of love and respect that we accord to any other person. Many are our family members, friends, colleagues and fellow Singaporeans. Disagreeing with LGBT positions is not an attack on LGBT persons. In fact, I hope that my speech will open up a platform for more difficult but respectful conversations on this issue.

However, we must recognise that the LGBT issues are sensitive issues, just like race and religion. People who subscribe to one faith do not force their beliefs on others. Religious beliefs are also not taught as facts in our school curriculum that students are expected to accept without question. Similarly, we should treat LGBT issues as sensitive topics just like religion. We should not force people to accept one view or another, or risk being labelled as bigoted or immoral. This is not to say that the issue should not be discussed at all. On the contrary, discussion should be encouraged, but as a balanced discussion on different viewpoints, not as a lesson on facts.

It is inherent in a society as diverse as Singapore’s that there will be fundamental differences in values and worldviews among our people. This need not be a source of conflict. While we may disagree on some issues, there are so many other issues that we agree on and can work together to advance. We do not need to descend into labelling, name-calling or questioning the worth of our fellow humans. Instead, we need to open up spaces for our people to hold different views at work, in schools and even within families. By looking beyond our differences and working together on what we have in common, we will build that better society we all aspire towards.

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will vote against the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and vote for the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.

This is my speech during the debate on the Online Safety Bill in Parliament on 8 November 2022.

The Online Safety Bill before us seeks to tackle harmful content on online services like Facebook, YouTube and TikTok, which are accessible to users in Singapore. I support the Bill, given the online harms that people in Singapore have been subject to on social media and on the internet, and the growing need to protect our people, especially the young, from these harms.

However, I have some clarifications to seek on the Bill which I hope the Minister will address before we vote on the Bill.

Protecting young persons

Access to digital communication devices is not optional in this day and age, even for younger children. For example, if a 10-year old child takes public transport on his own to and from school, his parents would want him to be able to contact them in case of an emergency or to track his location. In most cases, this can only be done using a mobile phone or smart watch. However, it would not be wise to give that same 10-year old unfiltered access to the internet on his phone.

Currently, parents can install a parental control app on their child’s phone. This app will allow parents to restrict content, approve apps, set screen times and filter harmful content. It can also locate the child using GPS.

I set this up for my son some time back. However, even with all my professional technical knowledge, it took me quite a bit of time and research to figure out which was the most suitable software to use and how to configure it. I wonder how many parents have tried to set up parental control software for their children. For those who haven’t, they should be aware that their children and teens have essentially unfiltered access to the internet, and all the harms that come with it. These parents can only regulate their children’s internet access by looking over their shoulders. This is a suboptimal solution given the asymmetry of technical knowledge between most parents and their children. Most children nowadays can run rings around their parents when it comes to configuring settings on their mobile phones.

Also, for such content filtering to work for young people, age verification is needed. The Code of Practice for Online Safety for Designated Social Media Services proposed by the Ministry states that social media services must have additional measures to protect children, including minimising children’s exposure to inappropriate content and ensuring that their account settings are age-appropriate by default.

However, the Code of Practice does not prescribe how this age verification should be implemented. Indeed, attempts at imposing age verification have previously failed in the United Kingdom’s implementation of the Digital Economy Act of 2017, in part because of privacy concerns — online age verification providers could collect excessive personally identifiable information and process it for other purposes in violation of privacy laws.

Separately, a young user can circumvent age restrictions by declaring his age to be 18 when in fact he is only 12.

Can I ask the Minister: How will content providers be required to perform age verification checks in practice?

Some internet service providers do provide parental control tools which block harmful content before they come through the fibre. However, they require a separate subscription that entails an additional cost every month. Many parents aren’t even aware of this service. They will have to take the effort to login to their broadband provider’s website and subscribe to this service. This is additional friction which will deter many parents from signing up, leaving young children vulnerable to accessing harmful content without their parents’ knowledge.

It would be better for internet service providers to block harmful content at the network level by default, rather than expect parents to set up complicated filtering software on their children’s devices. This remote filtering should be activated by default for all new mobile and broadband subscriptions, and offered for free for all subscribers. This will ensure that even children of less tech savvy parents will be protected by default. Adults who need full access to the internet should be able to opt out of the filtering service without any charge.

I am glad to note that under the Code of Practice, content that may encourage young users to engage in dangerous acts will be considered harmful content and be subject to additional safeguards for young users. Examples of these include the skull-breaker challenge where two people trick a friend standing in between them to take a vertical jump, then kick her legs from under her as she is in the air, making her fall backwards and potentially injure her head and back. People sometimes do not properly assess the risk associated with an activity. They may have seen others perform it without incident in a YouTube video, and may be tempted to experiment themselves.

Ultimately we cannot completely insulate young people from all dangerous, harmful and silly content online. The best protection is for parents and teachers to educate their children and students of the potential harmful content that may be accessed online and the consequences of indulging in them. The Media Literacy Council could also directly push out educational materials on the platforms that young people access like TikTok and Telegram. This should be an ongoing process, not a one-time effort, because harmful content is constantly evolving, and new trends are always emerging.

Under this Bill, failure to comply with the directions from IMDA could be an offence punishable by a fine on conviction. Can the Minister clarify if this fine will apply to only the company or also individual officers within the company responsible for ensuring compliance? Given the financial might of social media companies, they might have no problem paying even a huge fine.

The Code of Practice will require social media services to submit annual reports to IMDA to reflect Singapore users’ experience on the services, including the actions that they have taken on user reports.

I would like to propose that social media services be required to also submit quarterly reports listing the type of content that has been flagged by users. This is so that IMDA can keep apprised of trends in harmful online content and behaviours.

Section B of the Code of Practice requires that users of online communication services must be able to report harmful content or unwanted interactions to the platform providers through an “effective, transparent and easy to use mechanism” and social media services are expected to take action on these user reports in a “timely manner”.

This leaves open lots of room for interpretation. In contrast, Australia’s Online Safety Act requires platforms to provide a clear and easily accessible complaints system for end-users to submit complaints or requests to remove certain material, and the platforms must respond to the complaint within 48 hours, failing which the end-user may contact the eSafety Commissioner, who has the power to investigate the complaint. I would like to propose that Singapore’s Code of Practice include these specific requirements and timelines.

Another potential area of harm to young people is online gaming, which can be both addictive and cause social problems. Can the Minister share to what extent this Bill and the Code of Practice will regulate online gaming?

I note that the Bill covers cyberbullying content that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the target person. Will the non-consensual sharing of intimate images be covered in this Bill? There have been recent cases of disgruntled ex-lovers sharing such images, which most certainly cause alarm and distress to the victim.

Protecting our democratic rights

Next, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister regarding the protection of Singaporeans’ democratic rights in this Bill. Some respondents to the public consultation sought assurance that the proposed measures would not affect user privacy or freedom of expression.

The Bill gives wide ranging powers to IMDA to issue directions to social media companies to remove content it deems harmful. Can the Minister elaborate on what safeguards will be in place to ensure that such powers are not abused? Will there be any channels for independent appeal or judicial review?

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Bill specifically includes protections to safeguard pluralism and ensure internet users can continue to engage in robust debate online. For example, Section 29 of the latest draft of the UK’s Online Safety Bill requires content providers to “have regard to the importance of protecting the rights of users and interested persons to freedom of expression within the law” when deciding on safety measures and policies.

Section 15 of the UK Bill also requires social media services to put in place clear policies to protect “content of democratic importance” such as user-submitted comments supporting or opposing particular political parties or policies, and to enforce this consistently across all content moderation. The UK Bill also requires that platforms must not discriminate against different political viewpoints.

The UK’s draft legislation has also been designed to safeguard access to journalistic content. News publishers’ content will be exempted from social media platforms’ new online safety obligations. Because of this, social media platforms will not be incentivised to remove news publishers’ content as a result of a fear of sanction from the regulator.

Are there such provisions in Singapore’s Online Safety Bill? If not, will the Government study the online safety bills in other countries like the UK and Australia, and include democratic protections in the Code of Practice and subsidiary legislation?

Will Singapore have the equivalent of an eSafety Commissioner like Australia does? Who will this eSafety Commissioner be and will he or she be empowered to make directions independent of the Government?

Australia’s Online Safety Act itself was controversial in part because of the huge amount of discretion and power it puts in the hands of the Minister for Communications and the eSafety commissioner to determine what are community expectations. How will Singapore’s Bill safeguard democratic freedoms while protecting the young from online harms?

I note that some electronic services are excluded from this Bill. Examples of these are SMS and MMS services. Can I confirm with the Minister that other private messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal are also excluded from this Bill? For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating for these services to be included in this Bill, as they are primarily used for private communication between individuals. Much of the communication is end-to-end encrypted, which means even the platforms do not have access to data exchanged by their users. I would have strong privacy concerns if this encryption were to be broken for the purpose of enhancing online safety.