Parliament sitting 7 July 2026

Parliament 15, Session 1, Volume 96, Sitting No 32
Sitting date: 2026-07-07

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 {{Hansard-sitting-cargo}} / {{Hansard-item-cargo}} pattern before committing to the full ~100-item sitting.

Oral Answers to Questions

[Oral Q1]

Mr Darryl David asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the 14 online social media posts which seemingly targeted the Indian community and undermined Singapore's multiculturalism (a) whether investigations have revealed the posts to be a coordinated and deliberate effort by any particular agency or organisation; and (b) if so, what action has been or will be taken against such agency or organisation.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, with your permission, my response will cover oral Question Nos 1 and 2 on today's Order Paper, and will also address a related question filed by Ms Hany Soh for a later Sitting. If the Member is satisfied with the response, she may wish to withdraw the question after this session.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Goh Pei Ming: Thank you. There is currently no evidence to suggest that this is a coordinated campaign by any particular government or organisation. Investigations revealed that the content likely originated from a China-based platform, and was subsequently carried on other platforms and websites, including those in our local information space.

The posts attempted to sow discord by inciting ill-will against our Indian community and sought to undermine Singapore's model of multiculturalism. The content was assessed to constitute an offence of knowingly promoting feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on grounds of race and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony in Singapore under section 298A(a) of the Penal Code. The Government has issued Disabling Directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) to block access by Singapore users to the 14 online social media posts.

In recent years, there has been an increase in artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled and inauthentic content on a range of topics which has seeped into Singapore's online infospace. We monitor the infospace closely and will not hesitate to take measures if it is in Singapore's interests.

The Government regularly reviews our laws to ensure that they are updated and fit for purpose to deal with the evolving landscape.

Aside from the legislative measures, building up a discerning and resilient populace against external influences is equally important. The Ministry of Defence drives National Education and Total Defence to build a shared understanding of Singapore's foundational values and principles to deepen our public's sense of identity and nationhood, and to strengthen awareness of and collective resolve against threats that may undermine social cohesion and resilience, including foreign interference. The SG101 website is a one-stop Government site that consolidates educational resources on foreign interference, as well as Singapore's positions on sensitive issues to help the public better understand our national positions and to stay resilient against attempts to divide us.

The National Library Board works to cultivate critical reading as a foundational skill and to engage the public through its Source, Understand, Research, and Evaluate (S.U.R.E) programme, and this equips our citizens with the skills to verify and fact-check online content.

In addition, we regularly conduct briefings, dialogues and workshops to raise awareness of foreign interference amongst groups including our public servants, national servicemen and students. The Ministry of Home Affairs also rolled out a campaign in 2025 on the use of deepfake videos, AI-generated content and other inauthentic online posts to influence overseas jurisdictions to alert Singaporeans to this threat. This effort will continue, so as to raise awareness of the role that our Singaporeans can play.

Ultimately, a discerning population is the most important defence against attempts to influence or divide our society. We urge Singaporeans to be discerning when consuming and disseminating information online, and to reject all attempts to divide our society.

We take a serious view of threats to our social cohesion and racial harmony, including external actors, and will act resolutely against them.

[Oral Q2]

Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in view of the Disabling Directions recently issued to block online posts targeting the Indian community (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the current national framework and tools to counteract such external influences; and (b) what upcoming programmes or initiatives are being planned to equip residents with the competencies to discern such negative external influences, whether individually or through community efforts.

Answered jointly with Q1 — see full answer_text on item p15-s32-oq1, which covers both Question Nos 1 and 2 together as delivered by Mr Goh Pei Ming.

[Supplementary]

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, just have two supplementary questions. While it is heartening to know that there have been no evidence of external influence in this case, I would like to ask if the Government does indeed keep track of possible cases that fuel the possible coordinated efforts of organisations and agencies that may not be made so public and if so, are such cases on the rise? The second question would be, if these cases show evidence also of the influence of state actors, what actions would our Government typically take?

Mr Goh Pei Ming: I would like to thank the Member for his questions. Specifically, like I said in my response earlier, we have noticed an increase in the number of such posts, especially given the use of AI enabling the creation of such posts. So, we do see an increase and we do track very carefully every single case, including investigating whether there are possibly state actors behind the posts.

Some of this information, we may not find that it is suitable to release to the public, but we do look at every single case. We track the data over time to ensure that there is no coordinated campaign. More importantly, we will not hesitate to take action if there is a need to protect Singapore's interests.

Ultimately, we hold the view that any country out there would agree with us that we are just safeguarding our information space. And if we are interested in protecting our social cohesion – and we are – they will agree with us that such content is unacceptable and that the stance that we have taken is totally understandable.

[Supplementary]

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Our current framework of preventing external influences is primarily based on a couple of Acts or laws: the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (or FICA), the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and also OCHA. These are, in the view of our population, pretty much reactive in nature. I believe there are also proactive measures. The population looks at it as what we do after the events have happened. The question is, how effective are they and how do we measure this effectiveness? Is the Ministry exploring more preventive measures compared to these slightly more reactive measures? What are the programmes or initiatives that are preventive in nature and again, how effective are they? Specifically, how to educate or train or inoculate our residents from believing or disseminating such malicious influence?

Mr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, allow me to reiterate my response to the Members' questions. The Government had to act decisively against these videos because they seek to undermine Singapore's cohesion, and they seek to attack our multi-racial society and attempt to divide us based on our race. Our societal harmony cannot be taken for granted because it has been painstakingly developed over decades and every community in Singapore is valued. Everyone has our equal place.

This diversity in Singapore's fabric is our greatest strength, but it requires deliberate and constant protection against division. These videos strike at the very foundation of what makes Singapore home for all of us. That is why the Government acted firmly against these videos, especially also because they originated from a foreign source. We must reject all attempts that seek to divide us.

The Member asked about proactiveness and effectiveness. He also mentioned that we do have various Acts in place. Yes, I would like to reiterate that the Government has various legislative levers, some more recently introduced, in place to deal with such threats. These include FICA, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, POFMA, as well as OCHA. These are a range of levers that allow us to be able to act decisively should any such narrative or attempt to divide us arise.

I want to make the point that having these laws allows us to be very proactive, going upstream to demonstrate that we not only have the laws and that we are also willing to exercise these laws to protect our citizens and our social fabric before our racial harmony is affected. Our online directions under FICA were first issued or first used in July 2024. We have also used other various online directions under OCHA. They have been generally effective as the social media companies have worked with us and complied with the directions issued by the Government. Of course, we will from time to time continue to review the laws to ensure that they are fit for purpose, to continue to be proactive in this space.

In my main reply earlier, I have also listed various efforts in terms of public education. I would like to reiterate that a discerning public is the most effective tool to fight against such foreign interferences to split our society. Every incident that has happened is also a potential learning opportunity that we will use to educate our public to fight such division efforts.

Bills Introduced

[Bill · 1st Reading]

Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill — "to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960", presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Sim Ann) on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Motions

[Motion]

Reinforcing Singapore's Position as a Global Transport Hub (Motion)

12.19 pm

Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, I move, "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."

The Motion was also entered on the Order Paper under the names of Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui, Mr Jackson Lam, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

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.

[Full debate — GPC members' and other MPs' speeches — to be entered separately, each with its own {{Hansard-item-cargo}} call and debate_id=reinforcing-transport-hub-motion-2026, speaker_mp_id set to that MP.]

6.56 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications that Members would like to seek?

Question put, and agreed to.

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 Statement]

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.

[Clarification]

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.