Gerald Giam

Providing affordable homes for all Singaporean families

A public housing flat should be an affordable home for our families to live and grow up in.

The original mission behind the Housing and Development Board (HDB), when it was set up in 1960, was to alleviate the severe housing shortage at that time by building affordable homes for the population. However in 1989, public housing flats took on another role as an appreciating asset for their lessees, when the Government announced several major policy changes with regard to HDB resale flats.

First, the income ceiling for the purchase of resale flats was removed. This allowed people to buy HDB flats, even if they were higher income earners.

Second, permanent residents were allowed to buy HDB resale flats. This supported the Government’s liberalisation of immigration policies to attract more middle- and higher-income foreigners to come to work in Singapore. And third, HDB flat owners were allowed to purchase private property for investment purposes.

These measures added liquidity to the public housing market which pushed up prices.

The Government also introduced various upgrading programmes for HDB flats and estates. In addition to improving the living environment of HDB flat dwellers, this also bolstered the view that HDB flats are an appreciating asset.

Flat upgrading was pitched to voters by the PAP during the 1997 General Elections as a benefit they would enjoy priority for if their precincts voted for PAP candidates. Voters were told that after upgrading, their flat would increase in value. Conversely, precincts that voted for the opposition risked being placed further back in the upgrading queue.

Soon after the 1997 GE, then-PM Goh Chok Tong assessed that linking the upgrading programme to electoral support was the “single most important factor” in the vote swing to the PAP and that it was “decisive in tipping floating voters” in the PAP’s favour.

The PAP’s “votes-for-upgrading” election strategy continued into the 2006 election, when PAP candidates promised $180 million of upgrading projects for Hougang and Potong Pasir if voters tossed out the opposition there and voted in the PAP. Hougang and Potong Pasir voters did not bite the carrot offered.

However by 2015, opposition held wards like Hougang eventually started getting their lifts and flats upgraded. The scheme lost its effectiveness as a political tool. In fact, in my conversations with many residents in Hougang, it was this perceived unfairness that prompted them to vote against the PAP.

It is natural for people to not just desire a home to live in, but to also own an asset which grows in value. Many people think that their salaries alone will not make them rich. Properties, including HDB flats, are seen as very attractive assets to grow one’s wealth.

For the first two decades of the Government’s asset enhancement policy, the property asset-driven mindset worked like a charm. HDB resale flat prices increased 382% in value from 1990 to 2010. Many HDB lessees saw eye-watering increases in their property wealth.

However, this pathway to wealth requires ever increasing property prices to sustain it. Every property bought would need to be sold for significantly more than the purchase price. Yet, perpetual property price increases are neither sustainable nor in the public interest.

There are currently about 70,000 flats that are more than 40 years old, with remaining leases of 59 years or less. These flats will tend to decline in value after their 50 or 60 year old mark, as illustrated by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim yesterday.

Those who bought HDB flats in the 1980s and 1990s may be glad to see that their properties have increased in value. However, to unlock the value of these assets, they will need to sell and downgrade their properties before their leases start to decay.

Those with adult children would realise that the situation is much more precarious for their offspring. Many parents of young adults nowadays worry that their children may not be able to realise the same dream they themselves achieved to own a home of their own. Those who are better off have gone ahead and bought properties for their children to move in when they get married. Others have migrated to Australia, New Zealand and Canada where they are able to buy landed property for the price of an HDB flat. But where does it leave the rest of the Singaporeans who don’t have wealthy parents and want to remain in this country to build their homes, careers and families?

While many who graduated in the 1970s were able to afford a landed home after a few years of work, private property is now out of the question for most younger graduates. Even resale flats are out of reach for many of them, leaving BTO (Built-to-order) flats the only remaining option.

Moderating the price of resale flats

My honourable friends Louis Chua, Leon Perera and Jamus Lim have tabled proposals on making the price of BTO flats more affordable. In the remainder of my speech, I will focus on moderating the price of resale flats.

Many young couples buying their first flat prefer to live near their parents. This provides them the familiar surroundings that they grew up in and the companionship they can offer to their parents and vice-versa. Their parents are also able to help them care for their children when they are at work. Many homebuyers also prefer living in mature estates where amenities and transport links to the city are better developed. Only resale flats can meet many of these requirements.

This is also why BTO flats in mature estates are so popular. Many of my residents have approached me to ask me to help them appeal to HDB for priority to get a BTO or Sale of Balance flat in a mature estate, after trying multiple times to secure one in balloting exercises and failing. When I suggest buying a resale flat and using government grants to help with the down payment, my suggestion is often met with great scepticism because resale flat prices feel so far out of reach for them.

The median house price-to-income ratio (HPI) after grants of first-timer families who bought a resale HDB flat in the last five years was between 4.6 and 5.0. This ratio is the resale flat price divided by the household income of the buyers. According to the International Housing Affordability Ratings by Demographia, such a median multiple would be rated as “seriously unaffordable”. The median multiple would need to be 3.0 and under to be considered “affordable”.

This has pushed many of my residents to either rent at high open market rates or compete with other homebuyers to ballot for BTO flats.

We need to moderate the growth in resale flat prices. Our goal must be to moderate the growth, not make the prices collapse, because the latter would negatively affect many existing flat lessees who are depending on their flats as a source of future retirement income.

There are two ways to moderate resale flat price growth without imposing price caps by government fiat. These are: To reduce demand or increase the supply of resale flats.

The Government has already introduced the 15-month waiting-out period for private property downgraders to reduce demand. I will focus on measures to increase the supply of HDB resale flats.

Right-sizing for empty nesters

There is a potentially large stock of HDB resale flats that can be put on the market. Many seniors live in flats that are larger than what they require after their children have gotten married and moved out. It becomes difficult for them to clean and maintain such a large flat on their own.

As at 2021, there were 71,000 flats, 3-room or larger, which were owned by married persons over the age of 65, whose children had moved out. These flats could potentially be sold on the resale market if their owners are prepared to move into new 2-room flexi flats on short term leases. Many of these 2-room flats come with elderly-friendly fittings and nearby amenities, which seniors find quite attractive.

However, not all elderly applicants for 2-room flexi flats are successful. The application rates of BTO 2-room flexi flats allocated to elderly households, as at September 2022, ranged from 2.0 to 4.6 times in non-mature estates, to 9.9 times in mature estates.

If a larger proportion of the 71,000 senior households decided to sell their flats and buy 2-room flexi flats, the demand will far outstrip supply. By 2030, 25% of our population will be over 65. The number in need of right-sized flats will only grow as the years go on.

The Government needs to provide more help to seniors who wish to right-size their flats by building more 2-room flexi flats. Doing so will have the twin benefit of increasing the supply of resale flats for new homebuyers and moderating their prices.

Concurrent ownership of HDB flats and private property

Another area that the Government should look into to increase the supply of resale flats is to prospectively restrict the concurrent ownership of HDB and private property.

Currently, private property owners who want to buy an HDB flat are required to dispose of their property before buying an HDB flat. The Government has stated that this is to prioritise our limited supply of public housing for residents who do not own other properties.

However the reverse is not true: HDB flat owners are allowed to buy private residential property without selling their HDB flat. They can do so if they meet the Minimum Occupation Period and pay the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) of at least 17% on the purchase of their second and subsequent residential property. The Government has stated that this is allowed because HDB recognises that the financial position of HDB flat owners may improve over time and some may aspire to own private residential property.

While I acknowledge that this is a valid aspiration of many higher income Singaporeans, realising this aspiration cannot come at the expense of less well-off Singaporeans who are only looking for a roof over their heads.

As at October 2022, about 3% of HDB flat owners owned at least one private property. This translates to about 32,600 units. Of these, 45% are not living in their flats. So there are about 15,000 HDB units which are not occupied by their owners, who live in another private property that they own. This represents a not-insignificant number of HDB flats that could potentially add to the resale flat supply and moderate the price of resale flats. I do acknowledge that many of these flats are rented out, adding to the supply of open market rental flats.

Has the Government given further consideration to the possibility of future buyers of private property being required to sell their HDB flats? When I asked the Minister for National Development about this in November last year, he said that the Government has been “gathering views from Singaporeans as part of Forward Singapore, and will study these as well as other views and ideas carefully.”

For those who already concurrently own both a private property and an HDB flat, the Government could incentivise them to sell their HDB flat by rebating the ABSD they paid at the time they purchased their private property, if they choose to sell their HDB flat. This would encourage private property owners to free up their HDB flat for others who cannot afford to buy private property.

This policy should be prospective, so it will not compel current HDB and private property owners to dispose of any property. It will only affect those that currently own an HDB flat and decide to purchase private property after the policy takes effect.

If this policy is implemented prospectively, it will not immediately add to the supply of resale flats. However, in the medium to long term, it will better promote the owner-occupation intent of public housing and better ensure an adequate supply of affordable resale flats.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, housing is a basic human need. Singapore’s public housing policies were a great success in the first few decades after our independence. But the Government got distracted along the way when it started pairing the objective of affordable housing with that of asset enhancement. As a result, public housing has become unaffordable by international measures. The longer we allow these two objectives to be conflated, the more unaffordable housing will become for future generations. It is time that we stopped kicking the can down the road and focus on HDB’s original mission of providing quality and affordable housing for all Singaporeans, especially the lower and middle income earners.

This is my speech in Parliament during the debate on public housing policies on 7 February 2023.

Keppel O&M corruption case

I have filed several questions in Parliament for the Prime Minister to answer regarding the massive Keppel Offshore & Marine corruption case and the decision not to charge 6 former senior management staff:

1) Why couldn’t the 6 senior management staff be charged based on the evidence in the statement of facts in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement between KOM and the US DOJ?

2) Why couldn’t the 6 be named?

3) How many times has CPIB reached out to witnesses overseas or sought to obtain documents located overseas regarding this case?

These are the full questions I have filed:

*4106. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Prime Minister why the statement of facts contained in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement concluded between Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited with the United States Department of Justice dated 22 December 2017 is not considered sufficient, available, and appropriate evidence of the six former senior management staff’s culpability for them to be charged with corruption in Singapore.

*4117. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Prime Minister (a) why is CPIB not naming the six former senior management staff of Keppel Offshore and Marine limited who have been issued stern warnings in lieu of prosecution for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act; and (b) whether their ages and nationalities can be revealed.

*4116. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Prime Minister since the conclusion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement between Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited and the United States Department of Justice in December 2017 (a) how many times has CPIB reached out to witnesses overseas or sought to obtain documents located overseas; (b) when did these actions take place; and (c) what have the responses of the overseas witnesses or organisations been when contacted.

These questions are likely to be answered in the Parliamentary sitting on the week of 6 January. If you have some insights into this case that you would like to share with me, please WhatsApp me at 89250747 or email me at gerald.giam@wp.sg.

SPH Media’s falsification of circulation data

I filed several questions for the Minister for Information and Communications to answer in Parliament regarding the revelations of the falsification of circulation data by SPH Media. In summary, I will be asking:

1) What are the terms of reference of the Ministry’s review of SPH Media and under what conditions will public funding to SPH Media be reduced?

2) Were the increased circulation figures cited by the Minister in Parliament in 2021 used as a basis for funding and are they still reliable?

3) How many newspaper copies were printed, counted and destroyed and what is the environmental impact of these actions?

These are the detailed questions I will be asking:

*4103. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the Ministry’s review of SPH Media following their admission of falsification of circulation data (a) what are the terms of reference of this review; (b) when did this review begin and when will it be completed; (c) what have the findings been so far; (d) whether the report will be made public; and (e) what are the conditions under which public funding to SPH Media will be removed or reduced.

*4104. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what was the source of the figures cited on 10 May 2021 in Parliament that SPH’s newspapers’ circulation had grown by 5% and The Straits Times’ circulation had grown by 20% from 2017 to 2020; (b) how much bearing did this data have on the Government’s decision to fund SPH Media; and (c) whether the Minister still considers this data reliable in light of recent admissions by SPH Media.

*4102. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the total number of newspaper copies that were printed, counted and destroyed by SPH Media or its predecessor company for the entire duration of the scheme to inflate circulation numbers; (b) what is the estimated total weight of paper used; and (c) what is the environmental impact of these actions.

These questions are likely to be answered during the Parliament sitting on the week of 6 Feb 2023. If you have further insights into this issue to share with me, please email me at gerald.giam@wp.sg or WhatsApp 89250747.

Singapore’s participation in nuclear fusion reactor projects

Nuclear energy has been identified as a potential power source for up to 10% of our energy needs by 2050. New nuclear power plant designs have the potential to be much safer than many of the plants in operation today. In particular, nuclear fusion reactors promise to be even safer, as they do not rely on chain reactions, nor do they produce radioactive waste with an incredibly long “half life”. However, fusion reactors are still in the R&D phase. ITER (originally, “International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor”) is a giant experimental fusion reactor in France, which may deliver fusion power as early as 2045. Scientists from more than 35 countries are collaborating on this project to achieve the ambitious goal of grid-scale fusion electricity production. ITER recently produced a breakthrough of sorts, where it was able to produce more fusion energy than it consumed.

I asked the Prime Minister whether Singapore’s National Research Foundation (NRF) is looking into participating in ITER or other international fusion reactor projects, to allow Singaporean researchers direct access to the data and latest developments in the field

Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, who is also the chairman of the NRF board, replied that the NRF is currently not participating in any international fusion reactor projects, but is monitoring global developments related to fusion, including ITER, to identify where Singapore can participate and contribute meaningfully.

This is the full question I asked on 9 Jan 2023 and DPM Heng’s answer:

PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL FUSION REACTOR PROJECTS AND AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister with regard to the recent experimental developments in fusion and the Government’s previously stated aims to look into nuclear fusion as a source of electricity generation (a) whether the National Research Foundation is looking to participate in any international fusion reactor projects, like the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), to allow Singaporean researchers direct access to the data and latest developments in the field; and (b) if so, what projects have been looked into and how much funding is being provided.

Mr Heng Swee Keat (for the Prime Minister): The National Research Foundation is not currently participating in any international fusion reactor projects. Nonetheless, as part of our overall efforts of keeping abreast with the latest progress in nuclear technologies, we are monitoring global developments related to fusion, including at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), to identify where Singapore can participate and contribute meaningfully.

The latest development, in which researchers produced for the first time a small fusion reaction that generates more energy than it consumes, is a significant scientific advancement. However, more work needs to be done to achieve a much higher scale of net energy gain over a sustained period, for fusion to generate electricity in a commercially viable manner.

We will continue with our efforts to better understand the evolving nuclear science and technology by supporting research in relevant areas of nuclear science and engineering, and training a pool of scientists and experts through education programmes and collaborations with overseas nuclear technology partners.

Govt grants to Town Councils to cope with higher costs

All Town Councils in Singapore depend on government grants to offset their costs. In recent years, many costs, including that of electricity, manpower, construction and maintenance services, have gone up significantly. I asked the Minister for National Development if the Ministry has any plans to increase its grants to Town Councils to cope with these higher costs. Mr Desmond Lee acknowledged that TCs face higher costs. Although he did not immediately commit to increasing grants, he said the Government will continue to monitor the larger macroeconomic environment, the cost drivers affecting TCs, their income sources and overall financial positions, and assess if further funding support is required.

This was my full question and the Minister’s answer on 10 Jan 2023:

PLANS TO INCREASE GRANTS TO TOWN COUNCILS TO COPE WITH HIGHER COSTS

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry has any plans to increase its grant to Town Councils to cope with higher costs, including for electricity and other Town Council contracts.

Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils (TCs) are autonomous legal entities formed under the TCs Act and managed by elected Members of Parliament. The TCs are responsible for their financial sustainability, through managing their income and expenses prudently.

We understand TCs face higher costs due to higher energy prices, manpower costs and costs of maintenance services. Such cost increases are not unique to Singapore and the Government has taken steps to partially cushion the impact on residents. To help TCs cope with costs, the Government provides grants such as the Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Operating Grant, Lift Maintenance Grant, GST Subvention Grant and Lift Replacement Fund Matching Grant. Collectively, these grants to TCs amount to about $239 million a year.

The Government will continue to monitor the larger macroeconomic environment, cost drivers affecting TCs, their income sources and overall financial positions, and assess if further funding support is required.

Land valuation and BTO flat prices

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.

How many households own more than one car?

This is a question I asked Minister for Transport S. Iswaran in November. He said that as of 31 Oct 2022, about 471,000 households own cars. Of these, about 12% own two cars and less than 3% own three or more cars.

This means that about 15% of car-owning households — or 70,650 households — own two or more cars. This is by no means a small number. I followed up by asking what impact these multiple car owners have on the price of COEs, considering they not only add to the demand for cars, but because they tend to be higher income households, they have the ability to pay more for their COEs.

I also asked if the Ministry has any plans to dampen the demand for second and subsequent Category A cars from the same household, so that the limited supply of cars can be spread out more equitably to those who need it the most — for example, caregivers and those who need to drive for work.

Read below for the Minister’s full response and my subsequent supplementary questions:

29 Nov 2022

DATA ON FAMILIES OWNING MORE THAN ONE CAR

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport how many households currently own (i) one car (ii) two cars and (iii) three or more cars, including cars owned by different members of the same household.

The Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, as of 31 October 2022, about 471,000 households own cars. Of these, about 12% own two cars and less than 3% own three or more cars.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for his reply and his figures. Can I ask the Minister two supplementary questions? What impact do these multiple car owners have on the price of COEs, considering they not only add to the demand, but because they tend to come from higher-income households, they have the ability to pay more for their COEs. And secondly, has the Ministry considered the possibility of introducing measures to dampen the demand for second and subsequent Category A cars from the same household, so that the limited supply of cars can be spread out more equitably to those who need it most – for example, caregivers and those who need to drive for work.

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song for his question. Firstly, I think the underlying thesis is that somehow this component of the COE ownership is driving price increases. If we look at the facts, the proportion that has been accounted for by households in these various categories has been relatively stable over time. There has not been any major shift in patterns of demand. If anything, in fact, multiple car ownership amongst individuals has shown probably a bit of a declining trend; firstly.

Secondly, in terms of what accounts for the COE prices, whilst we can look for many plausible explanatory factors, the fundamental issue is supply and demand. Demand remains unabated, whereas supply is constrained, because we have a zero-growth policy and the supply is determined by de-registrations – which are in part affected by the 10-year cycle because of the historical pattern of car registrations and also because of current economic environment in people’s decisions on the margin – whether they want to de-register or extend their COEs on the cars that they already have.

So, on balance, I would say that it does not necessarily follow that any effort to curb car ownership beyond the first car in any household will necessarily have a dampening effect on COE prices, which is the second point that the Member raised. For two reasons, first, the quantitative impact is unclear as I have just explained; and secondly, because there may be very legitimate reasons why households have a second car or need a second car. So, we have designed a system where the market, based on demand and supply, clears the COEs at a certain price and we need to try not to adjust or affect the fundamentals too much because then it starts to create unintended consequences in the market.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I have a quick supplementary question. I accept that the second and third car households have not contributed to the increase in the COE in recent years, but does it add to the baseline of the COE demand. Because it might well be the fact that the number of households with two or more cars has not increased over the years, but 12% is not a small number, so that could also be causing the baseline price of the COE to be high.

Mr S Iswaran: If I may make two points in response to the Member’s questions. First, as I said the percentage has been stable over a period of time, at a time when COE prices were not so high. So, if the baseline argument is to be made, it must be made consistently across a 10-year cycle.

And the fact is, it is not so much that part of the equation, but more the supply side that has been affecting the overall prices of the COEs because of what we have seen.

It is also worth noting that households — because implicit in the Member’s question is that multiple car ownership is biased towards higher-income households. I think that is the point the Member is making, if I am correct, is that right? Yes.

So, there is a certain equity argument that is being advanced as well. I would point out that households that own multiple cars are not just those that live in private residential housing. There is actually a distinct proportion that also live in public housing.

So, there are different reasons why people have more than one car and we should have a care in making decisions on how to curb these additional demands.

Going back to the first point, I think that the patterns have not changed dramatically; in fact, it has been fairly stable. But we remain open and I think policy has to be informed by data and the patterns. And we will continue to track them.

Source: Parliament Hansard

#Parliament #WorkersParty

(edit: Changed “15% of households” to “15% of car-owning households”.)

Preventing crowd surges during festive periods and public events

I asked the Minister for Home Affairs last November whether the Ministry has identified a list of locations or events in Singapore at risk of crowd surge and stampede situations and what are the enhanced safety steps that organisers at these locations or events are required to put in place. I also asked the Minister whether the Singapore Police Force (SPF) proactively informs the public of crowd surge risks and ways to stay safe when participating in large public events. What prompted my questions was the tragic crowd crush in Itaewon district in Seoul on 29 Oct 2022, which killed 156 people.

Minister of State (MOS) for Home Affairs Sun Xueling answered these questions on 28 Nov 2022. She said that SPF works with relevant stakeholders to put in place measures to mitigate the risks associated with large crowds and put in place crowd management plans for major events such as New Year countdowns. Contingency plans are also in place. Her full reply can be found on the Parliament Hansard.

I presume some of these measures and plans would have been in place for the Marina Bay Singapore Countdown 2023 two days ago. Yet there were still packed crowds in enclosed areas which “triggered stampede fears in Marina Bay” (according to an AsiaOne headline) after the countdown was over and people were leaving the area through Marina Bay Sands (MBS). One TikTok user, @annainasia, posted a video, commenting that MBS was “insanely crowded”. @vinnography also posted a video of throngs of people crowding a single escalator to exit MBS. However, another user, @carl78794, posted a video of the surface roads at One Marina Boulevard, where the crowd control measures in place appeared to be more effective. I note that the Police tweeted updates throughout the evening of places closed “due to large crowds” and advised the public to avoid those areas.

In the same November Parliamentary sitting, I also asked the Minister whether tear gas would ever be used in crowded, confined spaces to control crowds. I felt prompted to ask this after the tragic football stadium stampede in East Java, Indonesia on 1 Oct 2022. During that incident, police fired tear gas in the stadium in an attempt to control the crowds, triggering a stampede and causing people to suffocate, leaving more than 130 people dead.

MOS Sun replied that “the Police will only use riot control agents, which include tear gas, in very specific situations where there is a serious threat of harm to persons and property or the risk of significant public disorder” and that “another lesson that we have learnt from looking at incidents that happen overseas is that the actions that we take have to be proportionate and we have to be very careful in the way we handle such incidents.”

Finally, I asked MOS Sun what lessons the Ministry of Home Affairs has drawn from the recent tragedies in South Korea and Indonesia to ensure that such incidents do not occur in Singapore. Specifically, I asked if the Ministry would be obtaining and studying the detailed investigation reports from the respective governments. The detailed reports are not always made public but may sometimes be shared between governments. MOS Sun replied, “Definitely, the Police, the SCDF do regularly analyse incidents that happen in other parts of the world to see what lessons we can learn through these unfortunate incidents.”

#Parliament #WorkersParty #crowdcrush #crowdsurge

Penal Code and Constitution (Amendment) Bills

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.

Bus waiting time and fare increases

Public transport fares will increase 2.9% from 26 Dec 2022. I asked the Minister for Transport in Parliament on 8 Nov whether the Public Transport Council decides on fare adjustments based on bus service reliability. Minister S Iswaran said “steady improvements” had been made and that between 2018 and 2022, all services had met the required standards, including bus 228, which he said was “close to Mr Gerald Giam’s heart”.

In fact, bus 228 is even closer to the heart of my residents in Bedok Reservoir, who could previously take several other bus services from their homes to Bedok Interchange before they got rerouted. They now depend on only bus 228, which has an arrival interval ranging from seven to 15 minutes. I urged the Ministry to look into increasing the frequency of this service to improve the commuting experience.

The Minister recalled that I had raised the issue earlier this year in Parliament as well and noted my “consistency” in doing so. He replied that reducing headways had cost implications because of the need for more buses and bus captains.

I understand that more frequent buses will cost more, but these costs have to be seen in the broader context of getting more Singaporeans to shift from pollutive private transport to greener public transport.