Parliament sitting 7 July 2026 - Revision history

SGPolitico at 07:04, 17 July 2026

2026-07-17T07:04:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:04, 17 July 2026
Line 981:		Line 981:

	The Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport, comprising Ms Tin Pei Ling as Chairperson and fellow PAP MPs Mr Edward Chia, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Jackson Lam, as well as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Sharael Taha, moved this Motion as Singapore is compelled to rethink how it remains globally connected amid a dynamic geopolitical environment and emerging technological changes.		The Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport, comprising Ms Tin Pei Ling as Chairperson and fellow PAP MPs Mr Edward Chia, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Jackson Lam, as well as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Sharael Taha, moved this Motion as Singapore is compelled to rethink how it remains globally connected amid a dynamic geopolitical environment and emerging technological changes.




Line 1,122:		Line 1,120:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-16		\|last_updated=2026-07-16
	}}		}}

	~~Add these four items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot4 (He Ting Ru).~~

	~~----~~

	{{Hansard-item-cargo		{{Hansard-item-cargo
Line 1,482:		Line 1,476:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-16		\|last_updated=2026-07-16
	}}		}}

	~~Add these four items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot8 (Kenneth Tiong).~~

	~~----~~

	{{Hansard-item-cargo		{{Hansard-item-cargo
Line 1,834:		Line 1,824:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-17		\|last_updated=2026-07-17
	}}		}}

	Add these three items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot12 (Jamus Lim). Note the sitting was suspended at 3.19 pm and resumed at 3.40 pm under the Deputy Speaker; this does not require a separate Cargo item, just noting for the sitting page's running narrative if one is kept.

	~~----~~

	{{Hansard-item-cargo		{{Hansard-item-cargo
Line 2,058:		Line 2,044:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-17		\|last_updated=2026-07-17
	}}		}}

	~~Add these three items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot15 (Lee Hong Chuang).~~

	~~----~~

	{{Hansard-item-cargo		{{Hansard-item-cargo
Line 2,284:		Line 2,266:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-17		\|last_updated=2026-07-17
	}}		}}

	Add these three items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot18 (Choo Pei Ling). Note p15-s32-mot21 is the Acting Minister for Transport's reply speech, closing this leg of the debate before Mr Liang Eng Hwa continues it (next batch); it uses the same item_type=motion_speech and debate_id as the rest since there is no separate "ministerial reply" item_type in the schema.

	~~----~~

	{{Hansard-item-cargo		{{Hansard-item-cargo
Line 2,532:		Line 2,510:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-17		\|last_updated=2026-07-17
	}}		}}

	Add these two items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot21 (Minister Jeffrey Siow's reply). Note the debate continued after the Minister's speech (Mr Deputy Speaker: "No clarifications for the Minister? In which case, we will move on. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.") — this is captured verbatim as it appears in the source.

	~~----~~

	{{Hansard-item-cargo		{{Hansard-item-cargo
Line 2,752:		Line 2,726:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-17		\|last_updated=2026-07-17
	}}		}}

	~~Add these two items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot23 (Yeo Wan Ling).~~

	~~----~~

	{{Hansard-item-cargo		{{Hansard-item-cargo
Line 3,000:		Line 2,970:
	\|last_updated=2026-07-17		\|last_updated=2026-07-17
	}}		}}

	Add these three items to the sitting page, in the "Motions" section, continuing sequentially after p15-s32-mot25 (Edward Chia). This is the FINAL batch for this Motion debate — mot28 is Tin Pei Ling's closing speech as mover, after which the Motion was put to the House and agreed to without a division. That resolution outcome should be recorded on the Motion's own Cargo entry ({{Motion-cargo}} for reinforcing-transport-hub-motion-2026), not as a separate hansard_items row — update that template call's outcome field to "agreed to" if not already set, using the exact resolution text below for reference:

	"Resolved, 'That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore.' – [Ms Tin Pei Ling]"		"Resolved, 'That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore.' – [Ms Tin Pei Ling]"

	Also note: between Baey Yam Keng's speech and Sun Xueling's speech, the House dealt with a short separate item of EXEMPTED BUSINESS ("Resolved, 'That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.' – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.]"). This is procedural, not part of the Motion debate, and does not need its own hansard_items row — flagging it here only so it isn't mistaken for a missing gap in the item_id sequence if the underlying transcript is checked later.		Also note: between Baey Yam Keng's speech and Sun Xueling's speech, the House dealt with a short separate item of EXEMPTED BUSINESS ("Resolved, 'That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.' – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.]"). This is procedural, not part of the Motion debate, and does not need its own hansard_items row — flagging it here only so it isn't mistaken for a missing gap in the item_id sequence if the underlying transcript is checked later.

	This completes the "Reinforcing Singapore's Position as a Global Transport Hub" Motion: 28 items total (p15-s32-mot1 through p15-s32-mot28), covering the mover, 24 backbench/NMP speakers, and three Government replies (Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow, Minister of State Baey Yam Keng, Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling), plus Ms Tin Pei Ling's closing speech.

	----		----

SGPolitico at 07:00, 17 July 2026

2026-07-17T07:00:44Z

Show changes

SGPolitico at 02:10, 17 July 2026

2026-07-17T02:10:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:10, 17 July 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:

	'''Fifteenth Parliament, First Session, Volume 96, Sitting No 32''' — Tuesday, 7 July 2026. The House met at 10:30 AM.		'''Fifteenth Parliament, First Session, Volume 96, Sitting No 32''' — Tuesday, 7 July 2026. The House met at 10:30 AM.

	'''Note: this is a partial stress-test page — Oral Answers to Questions Nos 1–20 only, entered to validate the {{tl\|Hansard-sitting-cargo}} / {{tl\|Hansard-item-cargo}} pattern before committing to the full ~100-item sitting.'''

	== Oral Answers to Questions ==		== Oral Answers to Questions ==

SGPolitico at 02:05, 17 July 2026

2026-07-17T02:05:04Z

Show changes

SGPolitico at 01:49, 17 July 2026

2026-07-17T01:49:33Z

Show changes

SGPolitico at 00:37, 17 July 2026

2026-07-17T00:37:53Z

Show changes

SGPolitico at 19:55, 16 July 2026

2026-07-16T19:55:37Z

Show changes

SGPolitico at 19:07, 16 July 2026

2026-07-16T19:07:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 16 July 2026
Line 473:		Line 473:
	Resolved, "That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore." — [[Tin Pei Ling]]		Resolved, "That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore." — [[Tin Pei Ling]]


			Add this section to the sitting page (Parliament sitting 7 July 2026), in the "Ministerial Statements" skeleton slot. Full source text included, replacing the "None this sitting" placeholder.

			----

	== Ministerial Statements ==		== Ministerial Statements ==

SGPolitico at 18:38, 16 July 2026

2026-07-16T18:38:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 16 July 2026
Line 472:		Line 472:

	Resolved, "That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore." — [[Tin Pei Ling]]		Resolved, "That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore." — [[Tin Pei Ling]]


			== Ministerial Statements ==

			{{Hansard-item-cargo
			\|item_id=p15-s32-stmt1
			\|sitting_id=p15-s32
			\|sitting_date=2026-07-07
			\|parliament_no=15
			\|item_type=ministerial_statement
			\|subject=Determination on Committee of Privileges Findings on the Conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap
			\|speaker_mp_id=indranee-rajah
			\|debate_id=cop-findings-lim-faisal-manap-2026
			\|topic_tags=Committee of Privileges, Parliamentary conduct, Workers' Party, Sylvia Lim, Faisal Manap, Pritam Singh, PPIPA
			\|verified=yes
			\|last_updated=2026-07-16
			}}
			'''DETERMINATION ON COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES FINDINGS ON THE CONDUCT OF MS SYLVIA LIM AND MR FAISAL MANAP'''

			12.05 pm

			The Leader of the House ([[Indranee Rajah]]): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Ministerial Statement to this House regarding the "Determination on the Committee of Privileges (COP) Findings on the Conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap".

			On 14 January 2026, this House debated and passed a Motion on "Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of the Opposition". The resolutions in that Motion relating to Mr Singh were all dealt with and concluded on that day. One matter, however, remained outstanding.

			Members will recall that in the fifth limb of that Motion, this House noted "that the High Court judgment and the Committee's findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, which have to be considered separately". That is unfinished business which has to be dealt with. The question is what to do with the findings regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal in the COP Report on the "Complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan for Untruth Spoken in Parliament", specifically the Committee's finding that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were untruthful to the COP about what was said at the 8 August meeting. I am now dealing with that today.

			To recap briefly, a key issue in the COP inquiry was what was said at the meeting of 8 August 2021 between Ms Khan and the three senior Workers' Party (WP) leaders: Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. In particular, whether Ms Khan was told to suppress the fact that she had told an untruth in Parliament, that is, that she should "take it to the grave". The three WP leaders all denied this. The Committee found otherwise.

			As the findings against Mr Singh were the most serious, the House referred his case to the Public Prosecutor. This enabled the matter to be independently investigated and if charges were brought, Mr Singh would be able to defend himself with the benefit of legal representation, and it would be for the Court to determine whether the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

			In relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, the Committee found that they had lied about what was said at the meeting of 8 August. The Report stated, and I quote, "Ms Lim and Mr Faisal attended the 8 August meeting. They agreed (to Mr Singh's advice) that the Untruth should be buried, and that Ms Khan would not have to tell the truth. They did not tell the truth to the Committee about that meeting."

			However, the Committee considered Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's roles in the matter to be subsidiary, and noted that both had been somewhat helpful to the Committee, albeit in a limited way. The Committee therefore recommended that consideration of what, if anything, should be done about their conduct of stating untruths to the Committee should be deferred until the conclusion of investigations and/or criminal proceedings against Mr Singh. Parliament accepted the Committee's recommendation.

			This was done to be fair to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. If the investigations or court proceedings produced evidence inconsistent with the Committee's findings, Parliament could take that into account before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. Pending that process, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were given the benefit of the doubt.

			The criminal proceedings against Mr Singh concluded on 4 December 2025 when the High Court Judgement was delivered.

			On 14 January 2026, Parliament passed a resolution noting that the High Court Judgement and the Committee's findings had implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Let me explain why.

			During the Committee hearings: (a) Ms Lim denied that Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to take her Untruth to the grave. She said that there was no discussion on this point. (b) Mr Faisal's evidence was that all three WP leaders did not remark on Ms Khan's confession that she had lied and did not discuss what to do about it. (c) Thus, at the COP hearings, both Ms Lim and Mr Faisal denied that Mr Singh had advised Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, and said that the matter was not discussed.

			However, now, after a full investigation, trial and appeal dealing with this issue, the Courts have expressly and conclusively found that: (a) At the 8 August 2021 meeting – at which all three WP leaders were present – Ms Khan's Untruth was discussed. (b) Mr Singh had lied when he denied that he told Ms Khan to "take it to the grave" – "it" meaning her Untruth.

			The Courts' findings directly contradict Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's evidence. It follows logically from the Courts' findings that their evidence to the Committee was not true. The Court Judgment effectively confirmed the findings of the Committee in relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.

			The question that arises is what is to be done in light of this. That is the unresolved issue that was deferred for decision.

			In principle, if someone gave untrue evidence to a Committee of Parliament and did so knowingly or intentionally, this would be dishonourable conduct and a serious contempt of Parliament and would be dealt with under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA). Ordinarily, if there is evidence someone has lied to a Select Committee, I would initiate the PPIPA process for dealing with such conduct.

			However, there are certain timelines within which such action must take place. Let me explain.

			In most cases, offences under the PPIPA can be dealt with fairly quickly and in the same session of Parliament. Occasionally, the offence may occur in one session of Parliament but for whatever reason Parliament may not be able to deal with it immediately and it is dealt with in a subsequent session of Parliament. However, in the interests of finality, there are constraints on this.

			Under section 22 of the PPIPA, Parliament has the power to punish offences which have been committed in either (a) the preceding session or (b) the last session of the preceding Parliament.

			The previous Parliament – that is the 14th Parliament – was first constituted on 24 August 2020. It was prorogued on 24 March 2023 and re-opened on 10 April 2023. It was dissolved on 15 April 2025. The 14th Parliament therefore had two sessions.

			In this case, the relevant conduct of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal took place in 2021, during the First Session of the 14th Parliament.

			Mr Singh was convicted by the District Court on 17 February 2025. This was during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament. However, Parliament rightly deferred consideration of Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's cases until the Court process had concluded.

			Those proceedings concluded only on 4 December 2025, when the High Court delivered its judgment. By then, the 14th Parliament had been dissolved, a General Election had taken place, and the 15th Parliament had begun.

			Under section 22 of the PPIPA, this 15th Parliament can only deal with offences committed either in this Session of the 15th Parliament, or during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament.

			As the conduct in question took place during the First Session of the 14th Parliament, it is no longer open to this 15th Parliament to impose any penalties in respect of this conduct under the PPIPA.

			This does not mean that Parliament is without recourse. The House could, if it wished, pass a Motion to express regret at such conduct. Such a Motion would serve to signal Parliament's disapproval, as it did in Mr Singh's case in January this year. However, it should be noted that in the January Motion, this House had already signalled its clear disapproval of lying to Parliament or its Committees.

			Given the very specific circumstances of this case, it is my view that no further action need be taken by this House in relation to the Committee's finding regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Had the timelines been different, I would have proposed a different course of action.

			This outcome has happened because even though this House was entitled to act on the Committee's findings in 2021, it decided to give Ms Lim and Mr Faisal the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Even though the Committee's findings have now been effectively confirmed by the High Court Judgment, the law in this case, the time-bar provisions of the PPIPA must be observed.

			Unless any Member objects, we can now bring this matter to a close.

			Mr Speaker: Before I call on hon Members for clarifications if any, I should point out that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise, so that the Leader of the House can answer as many clarifications as possible. Likewise, I will ask Leader of the House to also keep your answers clear and concise. Any clarifications for the Minister? Ms Lim.

			{{Hansard-item-cargo
			\|item_id=p15-s32-stmt1-c1
			\|sitting_id=p15-s32
			\|sitting_date=2026-07-07
			\|parliament_no=15
			\|item_type=ministerial_statement_clarification
			\|subject=Determination on Committee of Privileges Findings on the Conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap
			\|asking_mp_id=sylvia-lim
			\|answering_mp_id=indranee-rajah
			\|debate_id=cop-findings-lim-faisal-manap-2026
			\|verified=yes
			\|last_updated=2026-07-16
			}}
			[[Sylvia Lim]] (Aljunied): Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not think I need to repeat them. That is all.

			[[Indranee Rajah]]: I thank Ms Lim for her indication that she will not be objecting to my recommendation. And likewise, when she made those statements on 14 January, I had also responded on 14 January, and my statements are on record.

			12.17 pm

			Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bill. Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.


	==References==		==References==

SGPolitico at 15:28, 16 July 2026

2026-07-16T15:28:49Z

@@ Line 419: / Line 419: @@
 '''Q20.''' [[Pritam Singh]] asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in relation to the mandatory tuberculosis screening exercise announced at three locations in Bedok on 30 April 2026, what lessons have been learned from this exercise for future reference, particularly in relation to its impact on the business prospects of high footfall locations such as hawker centres and markets. — Answered by the Senior Minister of State for Health ([[Tan Kiat How]]).
-----
+== Bills Introduced ==
-''[Remainder of sitting — Questions 21 onwards, Bills Introduced, Adjournment Motion — not yet entered. This page is a partial stress test of the Cargo pattern only.]''
+{{Hansard-item-cargo
 ==References==