Justification for POFMA Correction Direction Issued on 15 February 2024 with Details of Couple's Financial Information

Mr Speaker, it is unclear why the Member believes that referring to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) balances of an anonymous couple would lead to their identification. To be clear, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Correction Direction issued on 15 February 2024 did not identify the couple in any way.

The disclosure of the couple’s CPF and MediSave balances were necessary to dispel falsehoods in a public statement by Mr Leong Mun Wai about Government assistance to the needy. In particular, Mr Leong falsely claimed the woman’s MediSave account was depleted, and that she could therefore not afford to continue paying for her hospital physiotherapy sessions. Mr Leong also referred to their low quantum of monthly support they receive, without taking into account that they were eligible to withdraw from their CPF Account.

It is unfortunate that there is a habit of rushing to publicise cases of persons in need. Instead, I would advise members of the public and Members of the Chamber to let social services know of such cases. I hope that we can agree that it is more important to first be assured that such individuals are indeed receiving the help they need, rather than to use them to prove or substantiate one’s policy or political arguments.

When cases are publicised with errors of fact, they create the misleading impression that we as a society are failing those of us who are in need. Government agencies then have to set the record straight, in the public interest, and this is consistent with the Government’s Instruction Manual and the Public Sector (Governance) Act on data governance standards, which provide that, among other reasons, personal data can be disclosed, if necessary, in the public interest.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Just one supplementary question. Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that this response from the Government, in this case, will instil some fear in residents against sharing their worries with people who are genuinely trying to assist them and seeking to assist them?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think in the whole process, we have been very mindful to make sure that the anonymity of the couple is assured. In the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) statement that was issued on 15 February as well as on the factual clarifications that were made on Factually, I think we had done our utmost to be assured of that. I think the whole exercise was to put out the facts and that is what it was all about.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and his assurances. Mr Gerald Giam asked a question on the disclosure of private data.

So, on the same note, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MSF knows how did Mr Leong Mun Wai come to know about the couple and their personal difficulties? I am just wondering whether there is any information leak from any agencies that had been dealing with the couple? Perhaps the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could clarify that.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Yong for his supplementary question. The short answer is there was no breach.

But this is what we know of Mr Leong Mun Wai's involvement. Following the post by Mr Leong on 12 February, our volunteers spoke with the couple to find out what had happened because we know the couple and we had been helping them consistently, and that what Mr Leong had put out contained falsehoods. The couple told our volunteers that they were surprised to find Mr Leong at the door on 12 February because they had neither approached the Progress Singapore Party nor Mr Leong about their situation.

Instead, they had said that they had actually returned to Mr Pritam Singh four years ago in 2020. Then, there was no response from the Workers' Party (WP) nor Mr Pritam Singh. Meanwhile, during these years, MSF and other Government agencies had been helping the couple and the extent of the help provided was set out in the MSF statement issued on 15 February.

The couple said that on 11 February, four years after they had written to Mr Singh, they received a call from him. Mr Singh spoke about the couple getting in touch with him four years ago and he told the couple that someone would visit them. Then, one day later, on 12 February, Mr Leong Mun Wai went to visit the couple.

The couple told us that they were told that Mr Singh had informed Mr Leong regarding the email that Mr Singh had received four years ago. As to why Mr Singh did not do anything for four years and why he then chose to speak with Mr Leong, and whether Mr Singh knew or agreed with Mr Leong that this matter will be highlighted on social media, just four days before the Budget Statement was due to be delivered on 16 February, that is not clear to us.

I do not know what Mr Singh was trying to do and I make no specific comment on his motivations. But I am sure he and everyone in this Chamber here will agree with me that people, especially the vulnerable ones that we serve and their plights should not be politicised. Instead, there must be a sincere intent to help.

It is an old art in politics, highlight one case, hopefully get attention, colour perceptions, make people think negative thoughts about the Government as a whole. Interesting that this happened a few days, just before the delivery of the Budget Statement on 16 February, perhaps to try to make people think that the Government does not help those who need help. But whether that is anyone's motivation, I do not know and I cannot make a statement on that.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think since I have been referred to, I ought to stand up and clarify matters.

So, indeed, there was a letter sent by someone who had not left their address. I get various letters all the time. I picked up that letter as I was clearing up my files in my office. This resident had made certain statements. I do not wish to reveal them here because I have not cleared these matters with that resident. I was just checking in on them to say, "Look, are things are better now?" That resident gave some feedback about still being in difficulty. I asked for the address, since the address was not on the letter. I realised that it was in an area where Mr Leong and his party are active. So, I said, "Look, have you seen your SSO or at least gone to the SSO?" The couple said, "No, we cannot, because I am blind." And the gentleman said that his wife was immobile. For that reason, I got in touch with Mr Leong. I said, "Look, if your team is visiting, you may want to find out and follow up."

For the record, maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary knows this, I receive similar feedback from my own residents about trouble that some other people may be facing in a different constituency. He would have had knowledge of an email that I sent to the Social Service Office (SSO), I beg your pardon, centrally to MSF, telling them, "Look, I have got this information. Can you please follow up with this resident who does not stay in any constituency which the WP are involved in."

So, I hope the MSF acknowledges that in this House, that this is how the WP operates as well. By the way, I did not know how Mr Leong Mun Wai followed up after that. But certainly, when we know of residents who are in trouble, who are in need, who are in difficulty, it is not in the WP's interest to go online and to point figures at Government agencies, point fingers at organisations like SSO for no rhyme or reason.