Bus services rationalisation

TODAY online asked for my opinion on the rationalisation of bus services for this article:

https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-romance-and-practical-appeal-bus-rides-and-special-place-they-hold-singaporeans-hearts-2321486

I continue to receive frequent feedback from Bedok Reservoir residents, spanning all ages, about bus services in their area. Common concerns involve decreased bus frequencies that connect them to Bedok Reservoir MRT station and Bedok Interchange. These issues arose following the removal of several bus routes in late 2021. I have made multiple appeals to LTA to increase the frequency of the remaining bus service 228, but have been told that the overall reliability of the service is acceptable. 

The key question is what is an acceptable frequency of feeder bus services to the closest MRT station. Is a scheduled frequency of up to nine minutes during peak hours, and up to 19 minutes during off-peak hours acceptable? This is the scheduled frequency for Service 228.

During the 2022 Committee of Supply debate, I stated that:

“If bus services must be removed, the frequency of the remaining feeder services to bus interchanges or MRT stations should be increased to make up for them. Commuters should not have to wait more than five minutes during peak hours or 10 minutes during off-peak hours for feeder buses.” (emphasis added)

I also stated during the Motion on the Cost of Living Crisis on 7 November 2023 that:

“Some service coverage is already being reduced. In the past three years, about 30 bus services have been shortened or removed. Such changes have affected my residents in Bedok Reservoir who continue to voice their concerns to me about long wait times and crowded feeder bus rides to the Bedok Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station. Elderly commuters who favour direct trunk services, which facilitate shorter walking distances for the commute, are also affected by these changes.”

I reiterate my stand on this. To establish public transportation as the favoured travel mode, especially in our pursuit of environmental sustainability, we must ensure that commuters do not experience a reduction in service levels because of a decrease in the frequency of bus services.

#Parliament #WorkersParty #MakingYourVoteCount

Use of SkillsFuture Credit for online courses

During Question Time in Parliament on 3 December 2023, I asked the Senior Minister of State for Information and Communications, Mr Tan Kiat How, to clarify if SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) could be used for courses run by Udemy, a popular online course provider. He had replied to another parliamentary question that “Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy can use their SkillsFuture credits for such courses and submit their claims directly to SSG (SkillsFuture Singapore) for reimbursement, upon completion of the courses.”

It was my understanding at that point that SFC funding for courses by Udemy had been discontinued for some time already and there was only one remaining online course provider, eCornell, that still received SFC support.

Mr Tan replied that he needed to check on that and clarified later that afternoon that what he had said earlier was accurate. Yet at the time that he said that, the SkillsFuture Singapore website still stated that:

Frequently asked questions

Can I use my SkillsFuture Credit to pay for Massive Open Online Courses such as Coursera or Udemy?

Nov 21, 2023 – Courses by Coursera and Udemy are no longer eligible for SkillsFuture Credit since 5 Jan 2020 and 8 Jan 2022 respectively. Currently, only the Massive Open Online Courses offered by ECornell (delivered under Genashtim Pte Ltd) are still eligible for SFC, till 9 Jul 2025.

However, the SkillsFuture website was amended later that night and it now states:

Frequently asked questions

Can I use my SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) to pay for online courses such as Coursera or Udemy?

Dec 03, 2023 – Singaporeans who want to use their SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) for online courses such as Coursera and Udemy can submit their claim request directly to SSG through SSG-WSG service portal.

Supporting documents required are:

– Course/exam invoice/receipt; and

– Completion of course certificate or proof of exam attendance.

You will be reimbursed of your out-of-pocket course/exam fees through your available SFC balance upon SSG’s approval of your claim request.

Source: SkillsFuture Singapore

It appears that SkillsFuture Singapore has decided to fund Coursera and Udemy online courses after discontinuing support in 2020 and 2022 respectively. This is good news for Singaporeans who wish to upskill themselves through online courses offered by these providers but were hitherto disappointed by the discontinuation of SFC support for Coursera and Udemy, as well as the expiration of the National Library’s contract with Udemy Business from 15 December 2023.

Note: I have no financial stake in Udemy and Coursera but I have taken courses from both providers (some using my SFC) and found them useful professionally. 

Here is the full exchange in Parliament:

Sitting Date: 22-11-2023
Section Name: Oral Answers to Questions

SOLUTIONS TO DEFRAY COST INCREASES IN NATIONAL LIBRARY BOARD’S DECISION TO CEASE SUBSCRIPTION TO E-LEARNING PLATFORM

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

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, the National Library Board (NLB) is committed to making e-learning resources accessible to all, as part of its expanded range of content formats to support reading, learning and discovery.

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh. 

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for this question.

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

The second supplementary question is in relation to alternative platforms for the users. How does it measure up against the current Udemy Business platform?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam. 

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply just now. 

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

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I would have to get back to Mr Giam’s question. [Please refer to “Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information”, Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

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

Source: Singapore Parliament Hansard

Sitting Date: 22-11-2023
Section Name: Clarification

CLARIFICATION BY SENIOR MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
(Clarification to Question No 3)

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, Tan Kiat How.

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

Source: Singapore Parliament Hansard

Should the President take up external appointments in his private capacity?

I made this speech in Parliament on 22 November 2023 during the debate on the Constitutional of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill.

Mr Speaker,

This Constitutional Amendment Bill provides for the President and Ministers to accept appointments in foreign and international organisations in their private capacities if it serves the national interest. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) asserts that such appointments can enhance Singapore’s international standing and help to advance our national interest. 

President Tharman Shanmugaratnam currently holds several international appointments, including chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Group of Thirty, co-chair of the advisory board of the UN Human Development Report, co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water and a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. The DPM said in his Second Reading speech that he is on all these boards in his official capacity. 

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

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

The presence of currently-serving senior public officials in international organisations has led to controversies in the past. In 2018, the European Union ombudsman called on then-European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi to resign from the G30 — the same organisation whose board of trustees President Tharman is now chairing. She said Mr Draghi’s membership of the G30 could give rise to a public perception that the independence of the ECB could be compromised, adding that “for the ECB to allow this perception to arise over several years constitutes maladministration on its part.”

The PMO stated that “from time to time, the President or Ministers are invited to take up key positions in foreign and international organisations.” Prior to this, did any of our past Presidents assume positions in foreign organisations in their private capacities while they were still in office, or is Mr Tharman the first? 

Additionally, have there been other invitations extended to the President for positions in foreign and international organisations that he has not yet accepted? Could the DPM provide the House a comprehensive list of his external commitments, both present and potential, so that Parliament can ascertain the extent of the President’s involvement in these organisations and his expected annual time commitment for these roles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

重新思考新加坡公共交通模式

严燕松（阿裕尼集选区）

这是我在2023年11月7日的国会里发表的英译中演讲。

______

生活成本危机：要求国会呼吁政府重新审视其政策，以减轻新加坡人及其家庭的生活成本压力。

议长先生，

新加坡面临着无可否认的生活成本上升趋势，这是由全球通货膨胀、供应链中断、能源价格上升和劳动力短缺等因素驱动的。然而，与武吉班让议员对动议的修改中所暗示的相反，国内政策决定，如消费税增长、水电费上涨、公共交通费用上升，以及拥车证的成本飙升，也导致了新加坡人的生活成本增加。

黑匣子研究最近的SensingSG调查发现，59%的新加坡居民认为生活成本是国家和社会所面对的两个最重要的问题之一。公共交通成本也是新加坡生活成本的组成部分，占新加坡金融管理局核心通胀篮子的2.5%。

在过去的10年中，地铁和巴士车资的增长率快于核心通胀率。在2023年的车资调整检讨中，公共交通理事会的车资调整公式建议高达22.6%的车资调整。尽管公共交通理事会选择将其限制在7%。这一项决定导致政府在2023年为公共交通运营商提供了约3亿新元的额外补贴，高于前一年的2亿新元。这一补贴仍未能消除剩余的15.6%的车资增长，公共交通理事会已将其推迟到未来的审核。

与此同时，公交业者继续公布惊人的利润。在2011年至2022年之间，SMRT和新捷运共计每年平均获利7460万新元，上一财年甚至高达1亿1千万新元。在车资上涨和政府补贴增加的背景下，这一利润尤其惹人注目。在我们当前的公共交通模式下，公交业者之间几乎没有竞争。这是因为不同业者运营的是岛内不同的交通路线。即使不同交通方式在相同路线的重复，也在逐渐被消除。巴士路线和新的地铁线路平行运行的公交服务也被取消了。

以上的论点引发了对当前车资调整公式有效性的疑问，以及围绕新加坡公共交通模式的可持续性的广泛讨论。

向国有化迈进

当前的模式包括政府对运输资产的所有权和在多个以盈利为导向的公交业者之间划分的运营合同。这个模式比政府更愿意承认的更朝向国有化迈进。。自2010年，所有铁路资产都转移到了政府手中。2012年，政府推出了每年11亿新元的巴士服务增强计划。2013年，巴士承包模式开始实行，陆交局在某些地区向公交业者招标巴士服务。这一过程在2016年完成。陆路交通管理局现在拥有巴士资产并向公交业者支付运营费，同时收取所有车费收入并设定服务水平。政府现在每年为公共交通服务提供20亿新元的补贴，即每次航程1新元。

目前的公共交通模式包括运营商、监管机构和政府，这可能会导致效率低下和额外成本。这些始终将转嫁到乘客和纳税人身上。这将表现为车资增加、政府补贴增加、服务覆盖范围降低，或三者兼得。

一些服务覆盖范围已经逐渐减少。在过去三年里，已经有大约30项公交服务被缩短或取消。这些变化已经影响到勿洛蓄水池一带的居民。他们不断地向我表达他们对长时间等待巴士和拥挤的勿洛地铁站接驳巴士的关注。那些偏爱直达干线服务以达到在通勤过程中步行距离较短的老年乘客，也受到了这些变化的影响。

工人党的国营交通公司提议

正如反对党领袖在提出这一项动议时所说的那样，我们必需重新思考政府发出一次性财政津贴的政策方法，并探索可能的结构性变化，以减少新加坡人的生活成本开支。

因此，重新考虑成立国营交通公司的提议是及时的。这一项提议最初由工人党在2006年提出。我们设想国营交通公司作为一个公共拥有、非营利、多模式的陆路运输实体，将监督新加坡所有的地铁、轻轨和干线巴士服务的规划和运营。

国营交通公司在多个方面优于当前的公共交通模式。

首先，在国营交通公司旗下，原本流向公交业者及其股东的可观利润可以重新分配给乘客。这样的收入可以减缓车资上涨并为老年人、残疾人士和低收入家庭提供交通补贴，直接解决生活成本问题。

其次，政府拥有权过问国营交通公司的财务记录，政府便可以仅设置足够高的车费来确保国营交通公司的财务可持续性，而不会过度负担乘客。复杂的车资调整公式可以废除。车资调整可以逐步引入，避免在经济困难时期突然变化。

其三，国营交通公司可以管理巴士换乘站、地铁和轻轨站，以及相关联的通道，利用这些黄金零售和商业区的租金来支持其运营。这将有助于减缓车资上涨和对不断增长的政府补贴的需求。

其四，国营交通公司可以根据专业知识、业绩记录和对公共服务的承诺，聘请国内外顶尖的交通工程师和管理人员。公司的成败由人才推动。利润动机并非是提高效率和生产力的唯一驱动因素。通过设定严格的关键绩效指标（KPI）并赋予这些专业人员的话语权，国家交通公司可以持续提高服务标准。相比之下，当前针对公交业者服务中断的处罚与其利润相比微不足道，也不会直接影响到高级管理人员的薪酬。国家交通公司的方法将在绩效管理上看到显著的改进。

其五，为了透明度和问责性，国家交通公司应该公开其高级管理人员的薪酬、主要利润来源和主要成本驱动因素，使国会和公众能够检查和审视其财务状况并追究相关方的责任。

其六，类似国营交通公司的统一交通实体将确保更统一的服务标准、增强的服务整合和全面的数据获取，用于服务改进。国家交通公司可以利用广泛的通勤者数据，运用人工智能预测通勤趋势，动态地指挥公交车和火车前往最需要的地方。通勤者在新加坡某一个地区提出的改进建议也可以在全岛实行。

其七，国家交通公司在采购、人员配置和技术基础设施方面也将产生规模经济，带来更多节省，使通勤者受益。

其八，国家交通公司将承担目前由陆路交通管理局持有的运营责任，让陆交局只专注于其监管角色，消除同时作为监管者和运营者可能出现的利益冲突。

最后，国家交通公司将被赋予自由去试行和引领陆路交通解决方案，并将新加坡置于全球交通创新的前沿。这可能为新加坡成为像自动驾驶公交车或环保的氢能源汽车等先进技术的早期采纳者铺平道路。

结论

议长先生，国家交通公司是对新加坡公共交通模式的重新思考。它让我们从依赖政府补贴以盈利的公共交通公司转变为一个非营利、统一的服务提供者，这将为通勤者和纳税人提供更高效、更具经济效益的服务。

这种新模式将把我们通勤者的需求和福祉放在我们交通政策的核心。它不仅会解决新加坡人目前的成本问题，而且还将引导新加坡的公共交通走向未来。

议长先生，我支持反对党领袖和阿裕尼选区议员，毕丹星先生，以及盛港选区议员，蔡庆威先生，提出的动议。

Rethinking Singapore’s public transport model to benefit commuters

This was my speech in Parliament on 7 November 2023 during the debate on the motion tabled by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and MP for Sengkang Louis Chua, on the cost of living crisis.

Cost of Living: That this House calls on the Government to review its policies so as to lower cost of living pressures for Singaporeans and their families.

Mr Speaker,

Singapore faces an undeniable upward trend in the cost of living, driven by factors such as global inflation, supply chain disruptions, escalating energy prices and labour shortages. However, contrary to what the Member for Bukit Panjang seems to imply in his amendments to the motion, domestic policy decisions, like the hike in the GST, increases in water and electricity tariffs, and rises in public transport fares, coupled with the skyrocketing cost of COEs, also contribute to the increase in the cost of living that Singaporeans are experiencing.

Blackbox Research’s recent SensingSG survey found that 59% of Singapore residents highlighted cost of living among the two most important national and community issues. Public transport costs are also a contributor to the cost of living in Singapore, making up 2.5% of the MAS’ Core Inflation basket.

Over the last 10 years, the rate of increase in bus and train fares has been faster than that of core inflation. In the 2023 Fare Review Exercise, the Public Transport Council (PTC)’s fare adjustment formula produced a whopping 22.6% fare increase, although the PTC chose to cap it at 7%. This decision led to the Government providing an additional subsidy to public transport operators (PTOs) to the tune of about $300 million in 2023, up from the $200 million the year before. This subsidy still does not eliminate the remaining 15.6% fare increase, which the PTC has deferred to future reviews.

In the meantime, PTOs have continued to post eye watering profits. Between 2011 and 2022, SMRT and SBS Transit have together posted profits averaging $74.6 million a year, reaching $110 million in the last financial year. This is particularly jarring against the backdrop of increasing fares and government subsidies. The PTOs in our current public transport model face little competition with each other, because they operate different transport routes across the island. Even duplications of the same routes for different transport modes are slowly being eliminated, as bus services running parallel to new MRT lines are removed.

These prompt questions about the efficacy of the current fare adjustment formula, and a broader discussion around the sustainability of Singapore’s public transport model. 

Inching towards Nationalisation

The current model consists of a mix of government ownership of transport assets and operating contracts carved up among multiple profit-oriented PTOs. The model is inching more towards nationalisation than the Government would like to admit. Starting in 2010, all rail assets were transferred to the government. The year 2012 saw the introduction of the $1.1 billion a year Bus Services Enhancement Plan. In 2013, the Bus Contracting Model saw bus services in certain areas tendered out to PTOs. This was completed in 2016. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) now owns bus assets and pays the PTOs an operating fee, while collecting all fare revenue and setting the service levels. The Government is now subsidising public transport services to the tune of $2 billion a year, or $1 for every journey. 

This mesh of responsibilities involving the operators, the regulator and the government potentially introduces inefficiencies and additional costs. These will eventually trickle down to commuters and taxpayers, manifesting as either increased fares, higher government subsidies, lower service coverage, or all of the above.

Some service coverage is already being reduced. In the past three years, about 30 bus services have been shortened or removed. Such changes have affected my residents in Bedok Reservoir, who continue to voice their concerns to me about long wait times and crowded feeder bus rides to Bedok MRT station. Elderly commuters, who favour direct trunk services which facilitate shorter walking distances during the commute, are also affected by these changes.

WP’s National Transport Corporation proposal

As the Leader of the Opposition said when moving this Motion, we need to move beyond one-time fiscal handouts and explore possible structural changes to existing policies to reduce cost-of-living expenses for Singaporeans.

It is therefore timely to revisit the proposal to establish a National Transport Corporation (NTC). This was first proposed by the Workers’ Party in 2006. We envisage the NTC as a publicly-owned, non-profit, multi-modal land transport entity which will oversee the planning and operation of all MRT, LRT and trunk bus services in Singapore.

The NTC offers many benefits over the current public transport model.

First, under the NTC, the substantial profits which go to PTOs and their shareholders could instead be redirected to benefit commuters. Such revenue could mitigate fare increases and subsidise transport for the elderly, people with disabilities and low income households, directly addressing concerns about the cost of living.

Second, with full access to the NTC’s financial records, the government could set fares just high enough to ensure the NTC’s fiscal sustainability without overly burdening commuters. The complex fare adjustment formula can be done away with. Fare adjustments could be introduced progressively, avoiding abrupt changes during times of economic hardship.

Third, the NTC could manage bus interchanges, MRT and LRT stations, and their associated linkways, leveraging the rent from these prime retail and commercial areas to support its operations. This will help moderate fare increases and the need for ever-growing government subsidies.

Fourth, the NTC could hire top transport engineers and managers, both locally and globally, based on their expertise, track records and commitment to public service. Companies are fuelled by their people. Profit motives are not the sole drivers of efficiency and productivity improvements. By setting stringent KPIs and empowering these professionals, the NTC can continually improve service standards. In contrast, the current penalties for PTOs’ service disruptions are trivial against their profits and don’t directly affect executive pay. The NTC’s approach will see a marked improvement in performance management.

Fifth, for transparency and accountability, the NTC should disclose its executive salaries, primary profit sources and major cost drivers, enabling Parliament and the public to examine its financial health and hold relevant parties accountable.

Sixth, a unified transport entity like the NTC would ensure more uniform service standards, enhanced service integration and comprehensive access to data for service improvement. Utilising the vast array of commuter data, the NTC can employ AI to forecast travel trends, dynamically directing buses and trains where they are most required. Improvements suggested by commuters in one region of Singapore could be applied island-wide.

Seventh, the NTC would yield economies of scale in procurement, staff allocation and technological infrastructure, leading to further savings that benefit commuters.

Eighth, the NTC would assume operational responsibilities currently held by the LTA, allowing the LTA to focus solely on its regulatory role, eliminating potential conflicts of interest from being both a regulator and an operator.

Lastly, the NTC would be given the freedom to experiment with and spearhead land transport solutions, and position Singapore at the vanguard of global transport innovations. This could pave the way for Singapore to be an early adopter of advancements like autonomous buses or eco-friendly hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Conclusion

Sir, the National Transport Corporation is a rethink of Singapore’s public transport model. It shifts us away from public transport companies that profit from government subsidies, to a non-profit, unified provider that will be more efficient and affordable for both commuters and taxpayers. 

This new model will place the needs and well-being of our commuters at the heart of our transport policy. It will not only address the immediate cost concerns of Singaporeans, but also steer Singapore’s public transport into the future.

Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of my Hon. Friends, the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Aljunied, Mr Pritam Singh, and the Member for Sengkang, Mr Louis Chua.

Israel-Hamas Conflict

This was my speech on the Parliamentary Motion on the Israel-Hamas Conflict on 6 November 2023.

__

6 Nov 2023

Mr Speaker,

At the outset, I would like to affirm the Workers’ Party’s support for Israel’s statehood and for the creation of a viable Palestinian state, side by side in peace and security with Israel through a negotiated two-state solution, in line with the relevant United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions.

The killing of 1,400 people, most of them civilians, in Israel and the taking of over 240 hostages by Hamas on 7 October 2023 cannot be justified and must be unequivocally condemned. However, the ensuing retaliation by Israel in the Gaza Strip over the past month demands critical scrutiny and a response from the international community, including Singapore.

Since 7 October, more than 9,770 people in Gaza — including thousands of children — have been killed, according to health officials in Gaza. More than 1.5 million people have been internally displaced and northern Gaza has been laid siege by Israel. Israel said it dropped about 6,000 bombs on the Gaza Strip in the first week of the war. This number is surely much higher now, topping the record number of bombs the US dropped on Afghanistan in the whole of 2019. 

The Workers’ Party supports Israel’s right to defend itself. However, this right must be wielded within the bounds of international humanitarian law, ensuring that the sanctity of human life, particularly that of civilians and children, is upheld even in the midst of a war. Israel was successful in securing its border with Gaza within days of the assault, but it continues to destroy civilian infrastructure, displace hundreds of thousands of people and cut off supplies of water and electricity.

Israel must recognise that executing this asymmetric response will only breed further hatred of it among the Palestinian population and provide fuel for extremists both in Gaza and around the world, perpetuating the cycle of violence and suffering. Former US President Barack Obama said that upholding international law and avoiding, to every extent possible, the death or suffering of civilian populations is “vital for building alliances and shaping international opinion — all of which are critical for Israel’s long-term security.”

Israel therefore must adhere strictly to the laws of war — not only for the sake of the suffering Palestinians but also for its own security. Proportionality, distinction and necessity must guide its military actions. Hamas must also immediately and unconditionally release all Israeli and foreign hostages. Failure to do so will only prolong this war, and lead to a greater loss of life and hardening of hearts on both sides.

Singapore’s potential role

The Workers’ Party supports Singapore’s vote on the resolution at the UN General Assembly on 26 October which, among other things, called for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities” as well as the “immediate and unconditional release” of all civilians being illegally held captive.

Singapore may be a small country, but we must do everything within our capacity, working alongside countries in the region and international agencies, to deliver essential humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Gaza during this current conflict. 

Our assistance must go beyond alleviating the immediate suffering of the Palestinians. We can also contribute to post-conflict reconstruction and development by offering more technical assistance to the Palestinians, for example, in education, public housing, urban planning, water management and tackling corruption. Under the auspices of the Singapore Cooperation Programme, Singapore has provided training for many Palestinian officials. In 2016, Singapore pledged to double the Enhanced Technical Assistance Package for Palestinian officials to the quantum of $10 million. We must follow through with this pledge, as this technical assistance will be needed more than ever during reconstruction following this war.

Our longstanding ties with Israel go back to our early days of independence and national service. Singapore also has good relations with the Palestinians and with influential Muslim majority countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, some of which have established diplomatic relations with Israel. Singapore was also the first country to sign a free trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Singapore’s diplomatic standing and trade relations with these nations places us in a position to play a constructive role towards pushing for a long-term solution for peace in the region. We should work with like-minded partners to help establish the foundations for enduring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and advocate for the implementation of the two-state solution. We should seek opportunities to facilitate greater dialogue between all stakeholders, including hosting high level summits between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Singapore could provide a neutral venue for peace talks away from the conflict zone. This potential peacemaking role is consistent with past initiatives. In 2018, Singapore was the backdrop for the first ever summit between the leaders of the US and North Korea, and before that in 2015 we facilitated the landmark meeting between the presidents of China and Taiwan.

And lastly, our think tanks like the Middle East Institute could play host to more Track II academic exchanges and business forums between Israelis and Palestinians. These less formal dialogues are essential in building understanding and sharing Singapore’s experiences in nation-building.

Misinformation and political debate

Mr Speaker, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Singaporeans, especially the residents of Aljunied, Hougang and Sengkang, who have actively engaged with Workers’ Party MPs on this issue. Your passion, concern, and call for a balanced, humane approach have been instrumental in shaping our collective voice on this matter. Let us unite in supporting efforts that foster peace, dialogue and understanding.

I am mindful of the potential influence of misinformation surrounding this conflict. There have been various reports of supposed atrocities committed by both sides. Many such reports remain contested and lack independent verification. It’s important to acknowledge there is a possibility that some information might be a product of war propaganda. There are significant challenges faced by journalists in independently confirming these allegations, given the hazards of reporting from a conflict zone. 

As Singaporeans, it is imperative that we individually take the initiative to guard against the spread of misinformation and disinformation. We should not look to the government to censor fake news for us. As an article on the website Vox advised, if a video, photo or post about the war makes you immediately furious or upset, refrain from instantly sharing it. Check the source by reviewing the account and its past posts and cross-reference it with reliable news outlets. This will help to keep our discourse on this issue rational and focused on what is most important — the welfare of the innocent civilians in Israel and Palestine.

Political debate occurring within Parliament, in classrooms or at Speakers’ Corner provides Singaporeans with a safe avenue to express their views and engage in discussions about international conflicts, including the Israel-Palestine situation. They also provide a crucial pressure release valve for discontent, helping to prevent individuals from becoming overly influenced by extreme rhetoric from foreign sources. Suppressing political debates does not prevent extremism; rather, it could lead to the debate being driven into radicalised corners of the internet, which is where the real danger lies.

Arguments against greater public debate have cited concerns about a general lack of understanding surrounding the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This raises two critical questions: What active steps are being taken to deepen Singaporeans’ understanding of this conflict? And are we as individuals proactively seeking to educate ourselves on this topic?

Schools and higher education institutions should more actively promote classroom discussions on this topic. This will not only provide young people with a platform to voice their perspectives and express their frustrations with the situation, but also encourage them to respect different viewpoints. With teachers or facilitators guiding these discussions, the conversations will be kept balanced and will avoid becoming overly contentious.

In our era, where information is widely accessible, there is no excuse for not acquiring a basic grasp of this important issue. Despite its complexity, it is essential for each us to make the effort to understand its nuances, so as to foster rational and informed public discussions.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, in summary the Workers’ Party calls for an immediate humanitarian truce, the protection of civilians and aid workers, direct humanitarian access, the swift release of hostages, and a return to negotiations towards a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, in line with the United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/21.

_______

Exams and Students’ Well-being

From this year onwards, students in primary and secondary school will no longer have to sit for mid-year exams. They will still have to take weighted assessments (ie, tests) and end-of-year exams. While the removal of mid-years is a good move, I am concerned exams are still being emphasised as the main form of assessment and promotion.

During the Parliament sitting on 3 October 2023, I asked the Minister of Education whether MOE has assessed the impact of the removal of exams on students’ well-being and whether the pressure on students is being shifted to end-of-year exams, and whether the MOE is working with schools to rebalance the emphasis on exams and tests. 

Read my question and the Minister’s answer below:

Effect of removing mid-year examinations on students’ well-being

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the effect of removing mid-year examinations on primary and secondary school students’ well-being and if the pressure on students is being shifted to end-of-year examinations; and (b) whether the Ministry is working with schools to rebalance the emphasis on examinations and tests with alternative forms of assessment.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: The purpose of education is to enable every child to learn values, skills and knowledge to develop into a healthy thriving person capable of contributing as a citizen. The school curriculum and programmes help students discover and learn, so as to reach their potential. Assessments serve as periodic points to gather information on students’ learning progress and to support them in their next stage of learning, such as in helping to determine the subjects and subject levels most suitable for them.

The removal of Mid-Year Examinations should be understood in the right spirit. It is not aimed at reducing stress per se, but at reducing the overemphasis on examinations and grades and to free up time and space for teachers to provide more engaging learning experiences and pace learning. This will give students more opportunities to strengthen their 21st century competencies and develop as self-directed learners.

Students will have sufficient feedback through a variety of ways, such as weighted assessments and classroom assignments, to improve their learning. Schools design a variety of assessments suited to the learning objectives.

Schools have given feedback that students and parents appreciate that there are now more opportunities for students to discover their interests and strengths. Teachers also have more time to provide a variety of learning experiences to cater to students’ learning needs and to give feedback on their learning.

The Ministry of Education will continue to work closely with schools and stakeholders to ensure that our school assessments are appropriately positioned and designed to enable students’ learning, while mindful of their well-being.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Societies (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker,

The automatic registration regime was the main amendment introduced in the Societies (Amendment) Bill in 2004. That was in turn derived from a recommendation by the Remaking Singapore Committee, chaired by then-Minister of State for National Development, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, to adopt a differentiated approach by listing down explicitly the types of societies that would require prior approval. Those outside the list would be “automatically” approved and registered. The Committee added a caveat that the registrations of such societies could still be revoked if they were subsequently found to use the society for unlawful purposes. 

MHA consulted the public on this and public feedback was generally supportive. MHA then fine-tuned the feedback received and finalised the scheme. Under the 2004 Societies (Amendment) Bill, the “automatic regime” required the Registrar of Societies to register these societies on the date the application is received without making any further inquiries, as long as the payment of the prescribed fee and other formalities are met. 

During the Second Reading of the Bill in 2004, then-Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, said that the amendments would “make it easier for many societies to be registered” and that “the changes are in line with the Government’s move to loosen up restrictions to encourage greater social entrepreneurship.” He called this automatic regime a “forward-looking approach”.

The Bill before us today reverses some of the liberalisations to the Societies Act in 2004. It seeks to allow the Registrar to require further information to ascertain whether the society does indeed qualify for registration via the automatic route. The Bill also allows the Registrar to reject an application submitted via the automatic route if the Registrar is satisfied that the society, if registered, is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or would be contrary to Singapore’s national interests or security. 

This effectively removes the automatic registration process in all but name, as every registration, even for societies that are not specified in the Schedule, will henceforth be subject to additional scrutiny. Thus, if the 2004 amendments were a “forward-looking approach”, this Bill appears to be a backward-looking approach.

Why are the amendments to the automatic registration route now necessary? What has changed between 2004, when they were introduced, and now? Section 24(1) of the Act already empowers the Minister to dissolve a society if it had secured automatic registration through false declaration or misrepresentation of its objects and activities at the point of registration. If there is need for an addition to the list of Specified societies listed in the Schedule, the Minister is already empowered under section 33A to amend the Schedule by notification in the Gazette. If the society engages in illegal activities, it can be dealt with through a whole host of laws to safeguard national security, and racial and religious harmony.

The MOS has cited hypothetical examples. Does she have real examples of society applications submitted since 2004 under the automatic route where one or both of the “two gaps” she mentioned were breached? What instances were there of registrations of non-specified societies that posed a security threat and should not have been registered? How did the Registrar deal with those cases?

How many applications to form societies were rejected or refused registration by the Registrar in the past five years, and what are the reasons for their rejection or refusal of registration?

Since 2004, we have seen the proliferation of access to the world wide web, social media, smart phones and artificial intelligence. There is no shortage of data for the authorities to conduct background checks on applicants, without even asking them for more information. 

Additionally, questionnaires can be built into the online application form, and the applicants’ answers to these questions could be used to flag out societies that are not eligible for the automatic registration route. The applicant can then be immediately notified to select the normal registration route before submitting their application. If all these gates fail and the society gets registered through misrepresentation, the Minister can dissolve the society under Section 24(1).

Groups nowadays can easily organise themselves over closed chat groups and will likely avoid going through the hassle of registering a society if it is made more onerous. It will impose a greater burden on law-abiding groups who diligently register their societies. 

By placing more hurdles for groups seeking to organise formally, the unintended effect could be to drive them and their activities underground. When this happens, the Registry of Societies will lose regulatory oversight of their financial conduct, which is one area where regulation is necessary in the public interest. 

Can the MOS assure the House that genuine applications under the automatic route will not face longer waiting periods for approval than under the current regime?

Finally, why do societies discussing issues related to civil or political rights, or the governance of the Singapore society* remain listed in the Schedule? The inclusion of these types of societies in the Schedule means that they cannot be registered under the automatic route. 

Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee said in 2004 that “such groups, which aim to promote a particular cause, can potentially give rise to law and order problems if they engage actively in pushing their agenda, without due regard for those who may not agree with their cause.”

Is this still the Government’s position and, more importantly, is that the only reason?

I look forward to the MOS’ answers to my questions. Thank you.

____________

Following Minister of State Sun Xueling’s responses to my questions, I asked these clarifications:

I thank the MOS for responding to my questions and for citing a real example where an applicant wrongly classified their route and ROS moved it to the normal route. Does that example not show that it is already possible for ROS to change the route of registration without this amendment to the Act?

The automatic route was introduced by the Government in 2004. The Remaking Singapore Committee, chaired by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, proposed this idea in 2003. Why was it deemed ok then but not now? Would the MOS agree that this is a reversal of the liberalisations introduced in 2004?

Child Protection Policies in preschools

Many parents are concerned about the safety of their young children after several high profile incidents at Kinderland preschool centres. On 18 September 2023 in Parliament, I asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Early Childhood Development Agency will require all preschools to adopt a Child Protection Policy and provide a template to all preschools to customise it to their own needs. A Child Protection Policy will articulate the minimum standards laid out in government regulations and may also include additional safeguarding commitments that are tailored to the school’s unique circumstances.

I also highlighted that a Child Protection Policy not only protects children, but also teachers and schools from unwarranted accusations by students and parents, by setting clear boundaries for all parties in their interactions with each other.

In response, Minister of State (Social and Family Development) Sun Xueling held up three sets of regulations and policy documents totalling over 200 pages that govern early childhood development to protect children, and explained that it is not for a lack of policies (that the incidents happened) but what is important is how well they are executed on the ground.

I appreciate Ms Sun bringing all those regulations to Parliament to illustrate her point that another policy is not necessary. I was not asking for yet another addendum to the hundreds of pages of regulations that preschools are already subject to. 

A school’s Child Protection Policy can encapsulate all the existing regulations in a liveable and breathable format. It could be published on the school’s website for all stakeholders to read. At the same time, it could be customised to the school’s unique needs. For example, the Singapore American School’s Child Safeguarding Commitment prohibits teachers from giving students rides alone in their car, or accepting social media friend requests from students until after they graduate from high school.

Most companies have a Data Protection Policy to protect their customers’ personal data, despite the existence of the Personal Data Protection Act and regulations. Why not do the same to enhance the safety of our children?

Here was my full question:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will require all preschools to adopt a Child Protection Policy (CPP); (b) whether ECDA provides to all preschools a template of a CPP that can be customised to each preschool’s needs; and (c) whether ECDA ensures that all preschool principals, administrators and teachers are aware of and trained to adhere to the behaviour and guidance provided in section 33 of the Early Childhood Development Centres Regulations 2018.

This is the exchange I had with the Minister of State in Parliament:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I would like to ask my question again because it was not fully answered and I also have one supplementary question.

Can ECDA require all preschools to adopt a child protection policy and provide a template to all preschools to customise to their own needs? A child protection policy will articulate the minimum standards laid out in Government regulations and may also include additional safeguarding commitments that are tailored to the school’s unique circumstances. It will help all stakeholders to live and breathe child safety, as Minister of State Sun has said just now.

My supplementary question is: is the Minister of State aware that a child protection policy not only protects children but also protects teachers and schools from unwarranted accusations by parents and students by setting clearer boundaries for all parties in their interactions with each other?

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. I would like to reiterate that in my main response, I had talked about the multi-layered safeguards that we have in place, that we have built up over the years in order to ensure child safety. I have with me here three sets of documents that govern early childhood development as well as the various policies that are in place to protect our children. This is the ECDC Act that I mentioned, 65 pages. We have the regulations, 66 pages. We have a Code of Practice; this is in its second edition, 75 pages.

All these are policies which we constantly review, which we constantly engage industry and operators on. It is not for a lack of policies. We can have all the policies under the sun, in the world. But what is important is how well it is being executed on the ground.

So, I fully recognise and understand where the Member is coming from. We are all on the same page. We want to protect our children as best as possible and we believe that the best way to do this is, to have multi-layered safeguards. Therefore, ECDA will look at these policies, rely on these levers, to make sure that operators, centres, educators are doing what they should do to ensure child safety. At the same time, operators need to know and truly breathe child safety in their policies and SOPs. Centre leaders and educators have to take their responsibilities seriously.

On the Member’s question as to how we can ensure that not only our children’s safety is being taken care of but also that we have policies in place for our educators, that is precisely why we have mandated CCTV installation so that when there is feedback, that there are unfortunate incidents in the childcare centres, that we then have evidence to support investigations and be able to give a comprehensive response to parents should they have concerns about their child’s safety in preschools.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Debate on the Immigration (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker Sir,

I will be addressing two areas of amendments in the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, namely, digitalising and automating immigration processes, and the administration of immigration passes and permits.

Automating immigration processes

The Bill will introduce provisions to support ICA’s (Immigration and Checkpoints Authority) New Clearance Concept (NCC) to further automate immigration clearance. I appreciate that ICA is in the forefront of immigration technology, but have three concerns to highlight regarding the roll out of the NCC.

First, MOS (Minister of State) Faishal told the House on April 21st that under the NCC, “all manual counters and automated lanes will be replaced in phases with the next generation Automated Border Clearance System gates”. Does this mean that once NCC is fully rolled out, the use of manual counters will no longer be an option for Singaporean travellers? 

Some categories of travellers frequently face difficulties in the process of clearing immigration. For example, some elderly citizens are unable to provide usable fingerprints due to their dry skin. Wheelchair users may have difficulty getting their irises scanned due to the height and angle of the scanners. Iris recognition systems could become prone to error as people’s irises change with age or after cataract surgery. And the biometrics of young children are still developing and may change over time.

Will the NCC include reasonable accommodations like wider gates for wheelchair users and adjustable scanners that can capture biometrics from travellers who cannot hold their head up for long? 

Most importantly, will Special Assistance Lanes which are manned by ICA officers continue to be provided at the passenger halls of Changi Airport and all land and sea checkpoints, and will they be easily accessible by all travellers with special needs?

Second, I note that the Bill empowers the Minister to authorise the disclosure of passenger information to the airport operator for specific uses. Does this “airport operator” refer to only the Changi airport operator or also operators of foreign airports? Do the “specific uses” include the sharing of Singaporeans’ biometric data? What enhanced safeguards are in place to ensure data security, particularly if Singaporeans’ data will be shared with third party vendors or foreign governments, over which we have little control?

And third, I note that Singapore is one of the first countries in the world to implement NCC-type capabilities. As shared by MOS Faishal in April, some of these capabilities will be implemented in a form and manner not used or tested elsewhere. I also recall that the four-and-a-half hour disruption to immigration systems on March 31st was caused by a failed upgrade of the Multi-Modal Biometrics System (MMBS). 

May I ask if the MMBS has since been fully upgraded? What additional contingency plans will ICA put in place to ensure that the upgrade to the NCC will not cause immigration disruptions of that scale or worse?

Administration of immigration passes and permits

Another key area of amendments in the Bill is to enable the ICA to more efficiently administer immigration passes and permits issued to foreigners and PRs (Permanent Residents). 

Cross-national marriages between a Singaporean and a foreigner make up about a quarter of all marriages in Singapore. Foreign spouses face many challenges settling down in Singapore, the chief of which is obtaining permission from the Government to remain in Singapore for the long term. This can be achieved, first, through securing an LTVP (Long Term Visit Pass) and, subsequently, PR.

For foreign spouses who hold university degrees and draw high salaries, obtaining an LTVP, PR and even citizenship is usually not difficult, since their income and skills add great weight to their applications. But those with low educational qualifications and incomes face far greater challenges in obtaining long-term residency.

At my Meet the People Sessions, which are attended mainly by residents in the lower income group, about a fifth of cases involve immigration matters. The Singaporean residents who approach me are usually disappointed that their foreign spouse’s LTVP or PR applications were unsuccessful and want me to make appeals for them. Some share with me their deep longing to start a family, but their hesitation due to their spouse’s uncertain immigration status. Most don’t understand why the applications were rejected because no reasons are provided by ICA.

During a 2012 Parliamentary exchange between Ms Indranee Rajah and the then-MOS (Home Affairs), Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Ms Rajah highlighted three cases of Singaporeans with prior convictions who were facing difficulties getting their foreign spouse’s LTVP approved. Mr Masagos agreed with Ms Rajah that families are the pillar of support for ex-offenders, but clarified that the “family” in this case referred to an “existing family unit”, not a new family unit formed when the ex-offender got married soon after his release. He added that “an offender just out of prison has many issues to deal with and an environment he is not familiar with anymore.” He further stated that “should a marriage not work out or the husband reoffends, the spouse who is a foreigner will not have relatives in Singapore to turn to nor jobs to sustain herself or her children as many are generally low skilled.”

Parents and siblings are not the only pillar of support for ex-offenders. Many may be estranged from their “existing” families or may have suffered divorce while incarcerated, and are starting anew. In fact, having a spouse provides stability and an added incentive for them to remain crime-free. 

We should not deny ex-offenders who have served out their prison sentence the right to get married to anyone they choose to. Similarly, once they are married, it would be most unfair for the State to deny or delay a foreign spouse’s long term residency on account of an ex-offender’s past conviction. This could put a strain on their marriage and finances, and keep the ex-offender locked in a “second prison”.

The Government should not make it difficult for a married couple to stay together by denying an LTVP to a foreign spouse or child of a Singaporean. Family formation is one of the core social values in Singapore and our immigration policy must support it.

In 2015, ICA introduced the Pre-Marriage LTVP Assessment (PMLA) to give prospective cross-national couples an indication if the foreign spouse is likely to qualify for an LTVP after the marriage. However, since the PMLA was introduced, out of an annual average of 7,200 LTVP applications, only 3,000 applicants — or less than half — had completed the PMLA prior to applying for the LTVP, according to a reply by the Minister to my question last month. 

In my conversations with residents who face difficulty getting an LTVP for their foreign spouses, most were unaware of the PMLA before they tied the knot. Does the Registry of Marriages (ROM) and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) advise cross-national couples to complete the PMLA before getting married? I am aware that the ROM website advises them to undergo a PMLA. However, is this highlighted to the couple in person before the marriage registration process, keeping in mind that many of these couples may not be proficient in reading English?

Furthermore, even passing the PMLA is not a guarantee of obtaining an LTVP after marriage. In another reply to me last month, the Minister revealed that only 1,900 out of the 3,000 foreigners issued with Letters of LTVP Eligibility were eventually granted LTVP or LTVP-Plus, which means 37% were not. The Minister explained that not every person who has obtained a Letter of LTVP Eligibility goes on to apply for an LTVP but it is unclear if this fully accounts for the 37% gap.

The Minister has stated in this House that ICA generally does not disclose the reasons for unsuccessful applications for immigration facilities. This lack of transparency is out of step with practices in some other developed countries. In Canada, for spouse sponsorship applications that are refused, their government provides reasons for refusal in writing. Similarly, Australia’s Department of Home Affairs explicitly states that if Partner visa applications are refused, the Department will provide information on why the visa was refused.

Improving the immigration process for relatives of Singaporeans

I wish to propose four approaches that could improve ICA’s immigration process for the immediate family members of Singaporeans. 

First, there should be disclosure of the broad reasons for rejection of LTVP, PR and citizenship applications by foreign spouses, children and parents of Singaporeans. 

Singapore does not permit dual citizenship so this is our citizens’ only homeland. They do not have an easy option to settle in another country if their spouse is not given permission to live with them in Singapore for the long term, especially if they are from a low income group. When rejections happen without a reason, the Singaporean spouse can feel disconnected from their own nation. I have seen this in the eyes of my constituents who sought appeals for immigration applications for their spouses. 

Second, where mitigation paths for future applications can be furnished, ICA should do so. For example, if an applicant was rejected because their economic contributions were not deemed sufficient, they should be informed of this, so that they could take steps to enter the workforce, upskill themselves and strive to perform better at work so as to earn promotions and salary increments. This is preferable over an opaque dead end.

Third, ICA should provide more criteria transparency to the immigration framework — similar to the COMPASS framework for employment passes. Previous answers by Ministers in this House have revealed the range of factors that are considered for LTVP, PR and citizenship applications. Why not list all these criteria clearly on the ICA website and on application forms, instead of expecting applicants to comb through the Parliament Hansard? Applications meeting these criteria should get fast tracked approval, with discretionary rejections allowed on a case-by-case basis.

The Minister told this House in 2018 that ICA does not share the “specific criteria or grounds for rejecting applications” due to concerns that “information about detailed assessment criteria can be abused to inflate an undeserving applicant’s chances of success” and that “some people could then try to game the system”.

In presenting the COMPASS (Complementarity Assessment) framework, which is used to evaluate foreigners’ employment passes and went live this month, the Government emphasised that it brings benefits like “transparency”, “clarity”, and “predictability” for businesses. COMPASS provides a points system, specific benchmarks for salaries and diversity, and employs objective data so firms can accurately assess where they stand. Indeed, the COMPASS criteria spell out in no uncertain terms how many points are awarded for various factors like salary, qualifications and improving diversity. 

If the MOM (Ministry of Manpower) is comfortable with the disclosure and transparency in the COMPASS framework in order to provide businesses with clarity and predictability for manpower planning, then surely ICA can extend these same principles to Singaporeans and their foreign spouses, children or parents, who need the same clarity and predictability for their family planning.

The Minister also said that the “reasons for rejection may be used to arouse negative sentiments in other countries” and that “this may create bilateral sensitivities and is not in Singapore’s interest.”

It is a universally accepted principle that countries have the right to make their own decisions on immigration. In any case, ICA does not need to tell the applicant that they were rejected because they were from a particular country or of a particular race. If there are any reasons for rejection that may conceivably cause diplomatic friction, those need not be shared with the applicant. However, the vast majority of reasons for immigration rejections are not going to sour relations with other countries. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Lastly, ICA should provide clearer channels for immigration appeals. The Bill removes the statutory right of appeal to the Minister on decisions made by ICA on granting, revoking and varying conditions attached to PRs’ permits. I have no objections to the removal of this right. I agree that foreigners have no right to demand to enter or stay in Singapore, and I note from MHA’s statement that PR applicants and PRs may still seek ICA’s reconsideration of its decisions, particularly if there are new facts that were not previously submitted to ICA.

However, when searching the ICA website, I could not find much information on submitting appeals for failed LTVP and PR applications. The website only states that failed PR applicants may submit a fresh application if there are changes to their circumstances. Anecdotally, residents often tell me that they were advised by ICA officers to make an appeal through their MPs.

While I am grateful for the chance to engage with more constituents at my Meet the People Sessions, submitting appeals through one’s MP should not be the default means of communication between citizens and the government. An accessible, self-service channel should be made available, particularly for appeals with a substantial volume. A secure online form should be made available on the ICA website for all immigration appeals, with clear instructions guiding appellants to submit new facts that were not previously provided in their earlier application.

Conclusion

I believe these proposals will provide a balance between the Government’s prerogatives and the needs of Singaporean families, while upholding our national interest. They could lessen the anxiety and frustration that Singaporeans with foreign spouses, children or parents experience with the immigration process. 

I support the Bill.

This was my speech in the debate in Parliament on the Immigration (Amendment) Bill on 18 September 2023.