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

Probe into social media posts targeting Singapore's Indian community and review of national framework to counter such external influences

[Oral Q1]

Q1. 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.

[Oral Q2]

Q2. 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.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs) responded to Question Nos 1 and 2 together. Note(s) to Question No(s) 1-2 apply — see full transcript for supplementary exchanges.

Review of Speak Mandarin Campaign and stance on Chinese dialects

[Oral Q3]

Q3. Cai Yinzhou asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the Speak Mandarin Campaign's current stated policy objectives; (b) whether the Ministry will review the campaign's continued application to locally screened dialect films, given that over-the-top and social media platforms do not carry the same restriction; and (c) whether the Ministry has assessed whether mandatory Mandarin dubbing of dialect films has any measurable effect on the campaign.

[Oral Q4]

Q4. Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry's assessment of the effectiveness of the Speak Mandarin Campaign includes any indicators of the campaign's impact on the use and transmission of Chinese dialects; and (b) if not, how does the Ministry track whether dialects remain in active use, in view of the position that dialects are part of Singapore's cultural heritage.

[Oral Q5]

Q5. Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed if the Speak Mandarin Campaign framing remains suited to today's conditions; and (b) whether the Ministry will evolve its approach so that promoting Mandarin no longer comes at the expense of preserving Chinese dialects as heritage.

Proposal to review decision for "Dear You" film to be dubbed in Mandarin for general commercial release

[Oral Q6]

Q6. Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what considerations led to the original decision to permit limited screenings of the film "Dear You" in its original Teochew version rather than subtitled wider screenings; and (b) what factors will guide the Ministry's more flexible approach towards permitting future dialect film screenings.

[Oral Q7]

Q7. Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will review the Film Classification Guidelines to allow Chinese dialect films, including the film "Dear You," to have a general commercial release with their original audio instead of restricting them to niche screenings; (b) why foreign language films face no equivalent linguistic audio restrictions; and (c) whether the historical rationale for mandatory Mandarin dubbing remains relevant to Singapore.

[Oral Q8]

Q8. Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will abolish the guideline that Chinese films for general release be in Mandarin and allow dialect films on general release in their original dialect with subtitles; and (b) whether the Speak Mandarin Campaign rationale for the guideline still applies, given that dialect use at home has fallen below 12%.

[Oral Q9]

Q9. Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the framework for classifying dialect language films for general release includes any assessment of Intangible Cultural Heritage value; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will work with the National Heritage Board to incorporate such an assessment.

[Oral Q10]

Q10. Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what factors are taken into account in Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA) decision for the film "Dear You" to be dubbed in Mandarin for general screening instead of the original Teochew version; (b) whether heritage and cultural preservation value formed part of the assessment; and (c) whether IMDA will consider giving greater weight to heritage and cultural preservation value in future assessments.

[Oral Q11]

Q11. Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Ministry will consider reviewing its policy to liberalise or abolish its language requirements with respect to Chinese dialects for media such as films and theatre, since the bilingual policy has reduced the use of dialects to less than 0.8% of Chinese households.

[Oral Q12]

Q12. Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the percentage of households that primarily speak Chinese dialects at home today as compared to 1979 when the Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched; (b) whether the Government sees the need to review the relevance of the Chinese dialect policy in its current form; and (c) if so, what considerations will be taken into account in any such review.

Answered by the Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information, and Health (Tan Kiat How). Note(s) to Question No(s) 6-12 apply.

Addressing gaps identified in Financial Action Task Force's recent assessment of Singapore

[Oral Q13]

Q13. Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law in view of the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force's assessment that Singapore is partially compliant in implementing technical requirements on transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements, how is the Government planning to address gaps in relation to verification requirements and the accuracy of beneficial ownership information.

[Oral Q14]

Q14. Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Law in view of the findings of the Mutual Evaluation Report of Singapore published in May 2026 by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force, what steps will be taken to (i) reduce delays in addressing mutual legal assistance requests (ii) increase the use of formal and informal cooperation channels in transnational crime investigations and (iii) accelerate asset recovery efforts from abroad.

Answered by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Murali Pillai), taken together at the Member's request. Note(s) to Question No(s) 13-14 apply.

National recycling rates, plans and targets

[Oral Q15]

Q15. Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) out of the 3.35 million tonnes of waste disposed of in 2025 (i) what is the estimated proportion that is recyclable and (ii) what is the proportion of industrial versus domestic waste; and (b) of the 52% recycling rate, what are the main categories of recycled waste and their corresponding proportions.

[Oral Q16]

Q16. Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has an ideal yearly national recycling rate target for 2026 to 2030; (b) what lessons have been learnt from how Singapore's waste and recycling profile has changed over the past decade; and (c) what updated measures are being considered to improve recycling rates for (i) glass (ii) paper and cardboard and (iii) textiles.

[Oral Q17]

Q17. Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Zero Waste Master Plan review will focus on reducing overall waste produced or circular economy outcomes rather than recycling rates, in view of the high contamination rates for recycling; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to implement nationwide clean-stream recycling bins that segregate recyclables and minimise cross-contamination at the source.

[Oral Q18]

Q18. Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry tracks data on the overall recycling rate by region and globally; (b) if so, whether the Ministry has observed a declining trend in the overall recycling rate regionally and globally; and (c) how does Singapore's overall recycling rate compare with other countries.

Answered by the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Janil Puthucheary). Note(s) to Question No(s) 15-18 apply.

Strengthening regulatory regime for nursing homes

[Oral Q19]

Q19. Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there are any plans to strengthen the regulatory regime for nursing homes to ensure that systemic lapses similar to those identified at the Windsor Convalescent Home do not recur at any other nursing home; and (b) if not, why not. — Answered by the Senior Minister of State for Health (Tan Kiat How), with supplementary questions from Fadli Fawzi and Lee Hong Chuang.

Lessons on impact of tuberculosis screening on business prospects at high footfall locations from recent exercises at Bedok

[Oral Q20]

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

[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.