Alvin Yeo
Singapore
“This is important as, while we all want to make Singapore free of organised crime, we do need to respect the rights of individuals who may be accused or suspected but not yet convicted of organised crime offences. Overall, I agree that we need to enhance the measures to combat organised crime and I do support the Bill.”
“I do not see in that any danger that they will suddenly Page: 65 become short-term in their thinking and this somehow undermines their independence. So, far from breaching the protective wall around the independence of the Judiciary, I see these changes as strengthening our Judiciary and, thus, upholding the rule of law.”
“Poorer households should, of course, be spared the need to pay more and should continue to receive subsidies to allow their children to avail themselves fully of these educational opportunities.”
“First cut on ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting. Mdm Chairman, our defence cooperation agreements with other ASEAN countries is an important aspect of our regional security framework.”
“Mdm Chair, on the drug situation, the worsening regional situation has made its impact felt even in Singapore, with the growing use of recreational or party drugs, especially among young adults. Singapore has fought hard to contain the drug menace and it is important that we do not let up on our efforts now.”
“In this way, anyone can rise higher, no matter what his or her starting point or background is. This is a true democracy; this is a true meritocracy; and what our nation is founded upon. It is natural for a nation that has developed as much and as fast as Singapore has done, to want to do more for the disadvantaged in society.”
The complete record
Every one of 183 lines we hold for Alvin Yeo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Sir, I thank the Minister and Senior Minister of State for their thoughtful and thought-provoking replies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $178,254,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $88,991,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Column No : 4392 Head S – Ministry of Manpower Building a first class continuing education and training system”
“I hope the Minister can enlighten us on the steps being taken to grow our presence as an arbitration centre and to stay one step ahead of the regional competition. Singapore – a global legal hub”
“After all, it is this concomitant benefit to Singapore from the QFLPs routing more business here that was the rationale for granting them the freedom to practise Singapore law and compete directly with local firms. This should continue to be an important consideration in deciding whether, when and how many more QFLP licences should be issued. Turning now to Singapore as an arbitration centre. Impressive progress has been made in this direction over the last few years. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) opening a regional office here, the arrival of various top-notch sets of English barristers to set up chambers or offices in Singapore, the inauguration of Maxwell Chambers as a venue for arbitration hearings par excellence have given Singapore a significant boost. The number and value of cases that are heard in Singapore, including by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), have grown steadily each year. Singapore has more new ICC arbitration matters than Hong Kong, while disputes from India, in particular, have climbed, indicating that we are becoming one of the venues of choice for India-related arbitral disputes. What more can be done? We need to identify the sources for arbitration work beyond India and try to market our not-inconsiderable capabilities to them. China-related disputes are not so frequently resolved in Singapore. We should try to improve on that. We need to continuously review our arbitration laws and the SIAC rules to ensure that they stay in tune with modern commercial practice. We must aim to build up the talent pool of lawyers who can act as arbitration counsels or as arbitrators. At the same time, other regional centres like Hong Kong, and even closer home, Kuala Lumpur, are ramping up their efforts.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100. The legal services sector continues to play the key role in positioning Singapore as a leading financial hub and international service centre. The rule of law and the breadth and depth of legal talent here are regularly cited in international surveys, ranking Singapore as one of the freest and most competitive economies. Over the last few years, the Ministry has announced sweeping initiatives to spur the growth of the legal sector. These included the granting of licences to practise Singapore law to qualifying foreign law practices (QFLPs) and measures taken to enhance the attractiveness of Singapore as an arbitration centre. A number of years on, I would like to ask for the Minister's view as to whether these initiatives have borne fruit and whether we should revise, modify or even accelerate them. Taking the licences granted to QFLPs first. As luck would have it, these were granted at the end of 2008 just as the world was reeling from the global financial crisis. The key factor for the granting of licences was the QFLPs' business plans to increase the manpower base here, the service products they would offer here and the turnover in terms of number of transactions in business from their offices based in Singapore. The crisis has undoubtedly put a dent in those plans but now that the worst is over and most of Asia, including Singapore, have recovered strongly, the question is whether the QFLPs have lived up to their promises or be delayed by the onset of the crisis.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the Minister, Senior Minister of State and Minister of State for their reassuring replies and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,029,226,200 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $264,190,600 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Column No : 4365 Head R – Ministry of Law Legal services sector”
“The Organised Crime Bill will have extra-territorial reach and also aspects where countries can cooperate with each other through mutual assistance. We will do what it takes to send a very strong message – as we have done with the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act – that organised criminal activity should not come in. These are just examples. Another feature that we are looking at will be: if anybody commits an existing offence in the Penal Code that is for the benefit of the organised crime group or in association with organised crime group, he or she will get an enhanced punishment. So, these are some of the features.”
“I am happy to note the resolute stance outlined by Senior Minister of State on organised crime. I just wonder if he could shed light on any specific measures being taken, for instance, beefing up our Organised Crime section, additional training and intelligence links to combat the new phenomenon of these sophisticated trans-national criminal syndicates. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as we have said in our speeches, organised crime in the form that exists in many other countries does not exist in Singapore. There is organised crime where you have got criminal syndicates which are well-organised, engaged in diverse activities, connected and also embedded in society. Some countries in South America and Central America are examples. But having said this, we do have organised groups of people in Singapore who perpetrate crime, like loansharks. That is one good example of organised crime, and even illegal betting syndicates. We have taken our approach in fighting loansharks as a forerunner. Our police officers are better trained. Also, we had introduced some features of organised crime in the Moneylenders Act last year. For example, how to get around the layering effect. This is something we have talked about quite consistently. We want to get gang members to squat on one another, especially those who are co-accused persons who would testify against, hopefully, somebody higher up. That is important. And they may be given a certificate of indemnity against prosecution. How to disrupt proceeds is another issue that we have thought about in the Moneylenders Act. We will think through further when we enact the Bill. So in the Moneylenders Act, we had introduced a freezing order. We can, for example, enhance that to make it a confiscation order in the Organised Crime Bill.”
“All in all, it was a sad indictment of the culture of complacency or, perhaps, apathy of our own people. How does our Ministry cope with this disturbing state of affairs? This is critical because no matter how well-prepared and well-equipped our security forces, there is no way they can absolutely prevent a terrorist incident without the full support and cooperation of the public. If such an incident does occur, it is only through the strength and unity of our people that we will overcome the setback. I hope the Minister can outline how we can better inculcate a sense of alertness in our people and the public spiritedness to come forward, or building the resilience of our societal bonds to withstand a racially-charged incident. I know that it is not an easy task to achieve and that the authorities have been trying to do this for sometime now. But it is too important for us to let up on it now. Turning now to the threat of organised crime. This is commonly thought to be pervasive in gaming centres around the world. Once organised crime is entrenched, the syndicates are notoriously difficult to dislodge as they spread their tentacles into different strata of society and even go to the extent of using legitimate businesses and fronts to launder their ill-gotten gains. Our crime agencies have had a distinguished record in stamping out the secret societies of old and other forms of organised crime in the past. But this poses a new threat as the international criminal syndicates are far more sophisticated and far better funded than the local gangs of the past. I hope the Ministry will make this priority for our crime investigation agencies going forward, and that the Minister will update us on the steps being taken to guard against the menace of organised crime.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100. 2010 was a milestone year in many respects for the Ministry. The terrorist threat continued to rear its ugly head as terrorists went on trial in the United States and India while deadly bombings occurred in different parts of Asia and the Middle East. Closer to home, we have the recapture of Mas Selamat and his subsequent repatriation to Singapore. With further information garnered from his interrogation, three of his relatives were convicted for harbouring him during his escape. 6.15 pm Last year also saw the opening of the two Integrated Resorts, amidst much fanfare and publicity. While the Integrated Resorts were rightfully credited with giving our tourism numbers a significant boost, the spectre of organised crime always looms over any gaming industry, lured by the potential profits from legal moneylending, prostitution, drugs and other attendant vices. These pose challenges on the security and crime prevention fronts. Taking up the issue of national security first, one of the questions raised by the conviction of Mas Selamat's relatives for harbouring him was whether the message of vigilance against the terrorist threat was being taken seriously by the public or whether we have become complacent in assuming, because a terrorist incident has not occurred in Singapore for decades, that it never would. While the actions of the three relatives were rightfully attributed to misguided family loyalties, the same could not be said for the simulated Time Square incident. Hundreds of passersby walked past the car that was packed with suspicious-looking items and belching smoke. But only a tiny fraction of them took the trouble to alert the authorities.”
“Could the Minister clarify whether the investigations thus far have uncovered evidence of a more formal support network for Mas Selamat or JI in Singapore. And, secondly, does the Minister consider that this episode has raised some lessons for investigative agencies for the future?”
“Provided it can be scientifically proven that such products may result in lesser harm or lesser tendency to be addicted, we should consider allowing such products because it would allow some smokers to reduce their dependency on tobacco. Could the Minister, therefore, make it clear that before exercising his powers to ban any particular product, there will be a detailed product assessment procedure where affected parties could seek to justify their products as less harmful or addictive, and with an avenue for appeal? There could be provision for an advisory panel of medical experts to make sure that claims of products being less harmful than conventional tobacco products be scientifically supported. I do consider that the ultimate goal would be to stop all smoking. But it may be pragmatic to adopt an approach to permit less harmful or addictive products, which would help to "wean" smokers off cigarettes. This would complement rather than undermine our prevention and cessation efforts. On that note, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. 4.42 pm”
“Based on the above, I ask if the Minister could make it clear that section 17A shall not prohibit use of a term that is used in a brand name, which was registered as a trademark prior to the effective date of the amendment Act. I understand that similar approaches have been taken in other countries such as China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Thailand. Sir, the second issue I would like to raise relates to the use of regulatory powers to ban particular tobacco products. Section 15 of the draft Bill provides the Minister with powers to ban any and all harmful tobacco products based on his discretion. This provision appears to be targeted at alternative forms of tobacco products such as chewing tobacco and smokeless tobacco. The Health Promotion Board's consultation document noted that most new alternative forms of tobacco products are marketed as safer alternatives to cigarettes, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, and that these products potentially undermine the effectiveness of Singapore's cessation strategies as smokers may switch to using these products. This is a valid observation and I support the Minister having such powers. Having said that, I believe that a judicious use of such powers will also be in the interest of public health especially when these alternative products can actually be proven to be less harmful and might lead to more smokers kicking the habit. I do echo the sentiments raised by two of my colleagues, Dr Lam Pin Min and Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef that harm reduction is a useful weapon in the strategy of reducing the incidence of tobacco usage. We do not live in an ideal world where smokers quit smoking because it is good for them.”
“This is in contrast with other terms used to describe, for instance, taste characteristics such as "low tar" which are generally added after the brand name, as opposed to actually being part of the brand name. Under our Trade Marks Act, a "registered trademark is the personal property" of the proprietor and the proprietor has exclusive rights to use the trademark. Inherent in our statutory scheme for the registration of trademarks is the determination of whether a trademark is of such nature as to deceive the public. Therefore a fair case can be made when the trademark has been registered and used in the past, that it was not considered to have confused or deceived the public. Further, Singapore is a party to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS requires a minimum level of protection for IP rights. Article 8 of TRIPS provides that signatories "may in formulating or amending their laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement". Article 17 of TRIPS requires that when measures are taken, limiting the rights of trademark holders, such exceptions should take account of the legitimate interest the owner of the trademark. If we are to adopt section 17A in its present form, we must take care not to marginalise the legitimate interest of holders of registered trademarks and, more importantly, not breach our TRIPS obligations. There may also be treaties where Singapore has entered into, for example, with the United States and Japan, to name just two, which requires us to uphold intellectual property rights.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The dangers of tobacco usage are well-documented and we must do our utmost to reduce the incidence of tobacco usage. There are, however, two areas of concern in this Bill that I would like to highlight. First, I should disclose that I have received in my capacity as Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair for Home Affairs and Law representations from a number of tobacco companies. I am also a partner in the law firm which is acting for one of these companies. Sir, the first issue relates to the implications of this Bill on Intellectual Property Law obligation. As the Bill stands, there is descriptor regulation that is being proposed in section 17A. The proposed section 17A prohibits the importation of sale of any tobacco product if its packaging and get-up may suggest that it is less harmful or gives a false impression of its health effects, or if the Minister prescribes so. The amendment is aimed at preventing the public from being misled into believing that the particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products because of the use of descriptive language or packaging. That, in itself, is a worthwhile objective and I do support the Bill giving the Minister such a power. However, my concern is that this amendment does appear to include "trademarks" within its scope. That may lead us to be in possible non-compliance with Intellectual Property Law obligations. As the Minister mentioned, examples of brand names that might be affected are those carrying the words 'light' or 'mild' or something similar. Some of these maybe registered trademarks in Singapore.”
“I hope these areas of concern can be reviewed by the Ministry and changes made if not in this Bill, then in the not too distant future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill. 5.18 pm”
“This could be weeks or even months after the investigation commences. And the threat or the risk that one is concerned with is a situation which has been perhaps anecdotally related where a police officer takes out an accused from the cell, questions him, does not get the answers he wants, puts him back in the cell for a few days, takes him out later, still does not get the answers he wants, back in there he goes again. And this could go on for some time. I should make clear that I am not talking about imposing a short period of 24 or 48 hours or getting to the situation that you see in Hollywood legal dramas, with the accused refuses to answer any questions unless he gets to see his lawyer. I appreciate and support the importance of allowing our investigative agencies to go about their work without the accused playing legal games with them. But there must be some limit to this as the right to obtain legal advice is a fundamental one for our citizens. Should there not be some fixed time period? It could be a matter of days or a week, after which the accused would have the right to see his lawyer even if the investigations are continuing. This period could itself be subject to further extension by a Court if good reason is shown. The well-deserved reputation for efficiency and competence of our police investigators can surely cope with this constraint which is after all in the interest of fair play. We are all supportive of the vital role that our law enforcement agencies play in the prevention and detection of crime. But it is a mark of a civilised society that it can strike the right balance between the interests of the State and the rights of the individual.”
“In particular, Explanation 2A states that the statement would not be excluded merely because it was inconsequence of a deception practised on the accused for the purpose of obtaining it. This might be seen as condoning or even encouraging investigating officers to deceive or trick an accused into making a statement which may inculpate himself. I appreciate that the Ministry has assured the public that there is no incentive for police officers to practise any deception, but that begs the question. If there is no such incentive, why do we need an explanation to say they can do so and still have the accused's statement admitted? Could not such a deception itself constitute an inducement or promise to an accused which may then lead to certain other arguments as to whether it should be excluded? More significantly, is this the sort of message we want to send to the public that a statement enlisted through the police deceiving an accused can and will be used against him? In that regard, I note from his speech that the Minister has said that section 258 merely codifies the existing law and the issue of any deception is perhaps technically relevant. If that is the case, then I would invite the Minister to consider dropping that part of the explanation and leave the application of the test which is based on any inducement, threat or promise to be applied by the Judges who are well equipped to apply such a test. My other area of concern relates to the continuing absence of any time limit for police investigations after which the accused gets access to a lawyer. Right now, the investigative agencies have the discretion as to when the accused person can consult a lawyer which is when they decide they have completed their investigations.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code constitute the second instalment of an extensive overhaul of our criminal laws, following on the changes to the Penal Code a few years ago. This is a major move and a welcome move as these statutes have not been subject to major review for a number of years. The changes that the present Bill seeks to make are also welcome as they update our criminal law regime to fit modern conditions and also strike a better balance between the rights to the prosecution and the defence. Among the many changes, two stand up. The first relates to the introduction of a greater range of community-based sentences. This recognises that the circumstances of offenders can vary greatly and better permits the Court to pass the sentence that befits not just the crime but the offender's condition and culpability. In this way, there is a better likehood of the offender being rehabilitated and being reintegrated into society after his release. The second major change is the new Criminal Case Disclosure Procedure which requires both the prosecution and the defence to exchange information of the case that they are mounting, in particular, the defence will obtain copies of all the accused person's statements, the lack of which has long been a bugbear of criminal defense lawyers. Amidst all these bouquets is, however, still more that could be done to further refine the criminal justice system. I would highlight two areas. Clause 258 seeks to make clear that the sole test for excluding an accused person's statement is whether it has been caused by any inducement, threat or promise. That, in itself, in my view, is not objectionable. However, it is the explanation that follows on upon it that do give rise to certain queries.”
“Or are we more likely to attract those with espoused views that appeal to the fringes of the electorate to gain enough notoriety to stand out from a candidate who is trying to win a contest honestly on his and his party's merits? What about the views of the majority who, in voting for the winning candidate, may have rejected implicitly, if not explicitly, the losing candidate who garners 30% plus of the vote? How would they feel about having this losing candidate admitted to this House? Do we really want to move from a system where we admit the best loser as an NCMP to a system where we let in the seventh, eighth or ninth best loser? The smaller size of GRCs and the increased number of SMCs will address the Opposition's complaint that the barriers to entry are set too high for them even without increasing the maximum number of NCMPs, nor, I believe, should our Government make any apologies for setting the barriers to entry into Parliament at a suitably high level. We may not have as exciting or entertaining a Parliament as some other countries and we may be regularly attacked by libertarian movements who wish us to blindly imitate western electoral systems whether or not they suit our situation, but our system works for our country. And while we should always prepare to modify it to keep current with changing circumstances, we must strive to maintain a House where constructive, not destructive debate reigns. 3.36 pm”
“At various times in Parliament, but most recently in his speech made last May, the Prime Minister has eloquently and forcefully put forward the case why proportional representation (PR) would not work for Singapore. In homogenous societies, they can work, but they tend to lead to coalition and often weaker governments. In non-homogenous societies such as Singapore, they could encourage more extremist views as an Opposition politician strives to attract enough attention and votes to come in as a minority representative. I do fear that increasing the maximum number of NCMPs would end up producing similar effects to that of PRs. Again, purely by way of illustration, if we had the system in place just before the last election, the ninth NCMP, or it would have been the seventh NCMP, but the ninth Opposition Member, would have gotten a seat in this House with just 34.63% of the votes cast in his particular ward, or just over one- third of the electorate supporting his candidacy. And given that the legislation only requires an NCMP to have a minimum of 15% of the total number of votes polled, the seventh, eighth or ninth NCMP in future could conceivably come in with an even lower level of support than one-third. The danger is that in future elections, we may attract candidates who, instead of trying to win a seat in a "first past the post" contest, which involves appealing to a majority of the voters in terms of policies and plans, would set out instead to create sound and fury to garner a large enough minority vote to enter this House as an NCMP. Is this the sort of representative who will take the level of debate or the formulation of policies to a higher plane?”
“For the NMP scheme, by definition, nominations are to be drawn from six groups, namely, business and industry, the professions, labour movement, social and community organisations, media, arts and sports and tertiary education institutions. A seventh group, the people sector, is to be added. One can really see that the NMPs who have generally distinguished themselves in this House, would offer different perspectives coming from the different vantage points that they occupy. That would not necessarily be the case with having a greater number of NCMPs. To illustrate what might happen in a future election, if we already had the scheme in place before the 2006 elections, the results would have been as follows: One, Workers' Party MP, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and six Workers' Party NCMPs, Ms Sylvia Lim and five others. One Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) MP, Mr Chiam See Tong, and one SDA NCMP. So the two Opposition parties that are already represented in Parliament, would have simply gained six more representatives. I have no doubt that that would have promoted a greater variety of debating styles and languages. But what about a greater variety of views and ideas? The Opposition regularly criticise the PAP MPs for speaking with one voice although I dare say that this current debate, amongst others, would disprove that notion. But have you ever heard Ms Sylvia Lim take a different position from that of Mr Low? Or going back to 1991 when the SDP had three MPs in Parliament, was there an occasion where they did not toe their party line? I believe that if the maximum number of NCMPs is increased, we will see more Opposition representatives in Parliament but not speaking with a different voice. Secondly, will it improve the quality of the debate in this House?”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate. In his speech in Parliament last May, the Prime Minister foreshadowed the changes to be made to our electoral system. These had four components: one, making the Nominated MP or NMP scheme permanent; two, having smaller GRCs – the average size for GRCs would be five MPs or less, compared to the current average of 5.4; three, having more single-seat wards, ie, SMCs, at least 12 compared to the current nine; four, lastly and perhaps most controversially, to increase the maximum number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) to nine. These changes are presently before the House. I, wholeheartedly support the first three limbs concerning the NMP scheme, size of GRCs and number of SMCs. I would, however, invite the Government to reconsider the plan to increase the maximum number of NCMPs to nine. It was stated last May that the benefits of these changes were that it would generate more robust debate, improve policy formulation, expose PAP MPs to the cut-and-thrust of debate and demonstrate to the Opposition what they can and cannot do. In his speech just now, the Deputy Prime Minister elaborated on this, by speaking of the need to improve the diversity of views and quality of debate in Parliament. I do not question the value of this objective. But I do worry whether increasing the maximum of NCMPs will really improve the quality and diversity of debate and whether it is really needed, given the other changes that are being made. First, would it improve the diversity of views that are aired in Parliament? In this regard, one must distinguish the NMP scheme from the NCMP proposal.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their clear, concise, yet comprehensive – only three "Cs" – replies and, to that end, Mr Chairman, may I seek leave to withdraw the amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $164,172,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $154,602,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Column No : 4071 Head S – Ministry of Manpower Raising productivity”
“Two clarifications, Mr Chairman. I certainly was not seeking to reopen the debate on liberalisation. That debate has been done and, as I mentioned, I was on the side that was for it. My request of the Minister is for, if you like, an update on the progress we have made thus far: specifically, have we gotten feedback from the banks and financial institutions which are key players in the financial sector which we are trying to support? It is an enhancement of the level of service. My second request for clarification relates to my call for leading local corporates to sort of allow Singapore firms a chance to pitch for their work – not to force them to use us, but to give us a chance to compete, and this becomes more relevant as Singapore companies venture overseas. Because if we cannot persuade Singapore companies to at least allow them a chance to tender for the work, it becomes even more difficult to persuade non-Singaporean companies. And this is not unknown. US and Japanese companies, just to name two, often bring their lawyers with them. And perhaps I could invite the Minister to comment on that.”
“To grant this concession only on incremental profits requires law firms to go through the classification of fees derived from qualifying and non-qualifying activities over the last few years which is not straightforward. Further, it penalises law firms that had already invested in these practices and started to derive substantial revenues from them even before this year's Budget. One can give any number of rationalisations for this limited concession but my point is that it is simply not attractive enough. It would drive more firms to devote their energies towards developing an international arbitration practice if all profits from such activities qualify for the concessionary tax rate. But in order to ensure that the concession met its objective, it could come with a sunset clause, say, five years, whereupon it could be reviewed to see if it should be extended, discontinued or modified. Mr Chairman, the Government has made the right moves to develop Singapore as an arbitration hub and the process is there for all to see. We need to keep on being proactive and making adjustments to stay ahead of the competition and enhance the attractions for foreign parties to have their international disputes resolved here. International arbitration hub”
“One other aspect to be looked into are arbitrators' fees. This is important in winning over parties and international arbitrators towards using the SIAC. There have been concerns raised about the SIAC's scale of fees and its ad-valorem basis and whether it provides sufficient flexibility for arbitrators who have different billing practices. The internalisation of the SIAC's Board by appointing leading foreign lawyers was the right move to take the SIAC through the next phase of its development. The review of its rules, which I understand is being currently undertaken by the Board, is the next important step to keep the SIAC relevant and flexible enough to gain a greater market share of international disputes. The promotion of Singapore as a neutral and arbitration-friendly regime is another vital initiative to persuade foreign partners to select Singapore as the venue for their arbitrations. Just last month, there was an SIAC conference held in Mumbai, and which our Minister spoke, which serves to spread the word of the virtues of basing your arbitrations in Singapore and the depth of expertise available here. We need more such conferences and seminars, not just in Mumbai but in Delhi, Beijing, Shanghai, Dubai and Hanoi, to name but a few. So the Minister for Law will be kept busy in his travels. In this way, we can position Singapore as the venue of choice in Asia for arbitral disputes. Our Singapore law firms are also emerging as players in the international arbitration arena, not just for arbitration held in Singapore but those outside as well. To encourage them to grow their practices, this year's Budget extends a concessionary tax rate on incremental profits for such activities. However, my concern is that this measure does not go far enough.”
“Quite apart from the direct economic returns from companies briefing our lawyers for arbitration and overseas visitors staying at our hotels and patronising our shops and restaurants, it cements Singapore's position as a centre for legal excellence and where the rule of law applies. This has an intangible effect but no less real on the internationally-held view that Singapore is a good place to do business. What else can we do to spur the growth of Singapore as an arbitration centre? The refurbishment of the building which is now called Maxwell Chambers as a venue for hearings has drawn rave reviews from users. We clearly have the hardware in place but we still need to look after the software. Arbitrations fall into two main categories – those administered by an institution such as the International Chamber of Commerce for our own Singapore International Arbitration Centre and those who are not administered which are termed "ad hoc" arbitrations. Parties and ad hoc arbitrations are free to set their own rules and procedures for those proceedings. But the Government still needs to make sure that the legislative framework properly supports these arbitrations. That means they need to monitor developments in the arbitration space and be ready to make changes as they did following the court's positions in cases such as the John Holland, Jeffrey Tang and Dermajaya Properties cases. As for institutional arbitrations, there is less we can do to change the rules and policies of international organisations like the ICC. But we can and do need to keep our SIAC Rules in tune with the needs of the international community. These include dealing with current thorny issues like joinder of non-parties, consolidation of proceedings and electronic document production.”
“This is more effective than a concessionary tax rate on profits from overseas offices because, to be frank, most overseas offices result in losses for the first few years. And if all else fails, perhaps the Government should re-look at the question of whether to permit local firms to merge, in the full sense of the word, with foreign firms. Ironically, this will better preserve their local identity as the local office in Singapore may have 50 or 100 or more lawyers who would form part of the merged firm, as opposed to an international law firm merely cherry-picking those two or three lawyers they need to complement their staff here. Nor should these permitted mergers be limited to United States or United Kingdom firms as the dawn of the Pacific Century may mean that the merger with a Chinese or an Indian firm is the way to go. I do hope the Minister would consider all suggestions in our drive to make Singapore the preamble legal centre in Asia if not beyond. International arbitration On the Singapore International Arbitration Hub, the recent opening of Maxwell Chambers, a dedicated centre for hosting arbitration hearings and the inaugural Singapore International Arbitration Forum at which our Minister gave the keynote address, marked a milestone in our development as a centre for international arbitration. From the days long-gone by when many lawyers were unfamiliar with even the concept of arbitration, through the times when our Courts were perceived to be anti-arbitration, Singapore is considered by many to be rivalling Hong Kong as a venue for arbitrating Asian disputes. Indeed, some observers think we have overtaken them. The benefits of these are obvious.”
“An analogy may be drawn with Hong Kong where the perception is that corporate work is dominated by the international firms. As the domestic market is being evaded by the international players, the local firms must spread their wings overseas. But penetrating an overseas market is not easy at the best of times and usually takes years. The international law firms have the size and financial resources to make those investments, the local firms less so. So how can the playing field be levelled up? For a start, it would be good if our leading local corporates, including Temasek-linked companies, could give Singapore law firms an opportunity to pitch for their work, both here and overseas. I do not mean to call for some kind of ruling or edict that the project must be awarded to a Singapore law firm at all costs. The award of any work must be decided on merit but the opportunity to bid for and be considered for the assignment would sharpen the competitive instincts of our local law firms. It would be further encouragement for our local firms if our own corporate clients did not discriminate against them when it comes to legal fees as anecdotal evidence suggests that they bargain less, and less hard, with foreign law firms. I would also propose that the Ministry look into further financial incentives for local firms to market their services and open offices abroad. This is really the only way to develop an overseas market. But Singapore law firms are often deterred by the substantial costs. Allowing double deductions or extra allowances for such expenditure to open overseas offices would, in my view, encourage more firms to take the plunge.”
“Again, in terms of keeping our local legal talent, in particular those more interested in corporate law rather than litigation, have we witnessed more Singapore lawyers coming back to practise in international firms based here, or seen few of our lawyers leaving Singapore to pursue legal careers elsewhere? I think it is essential for us to track this as the liberalisation measures were debated long and hard and essentially adopted for the greater good of the country. If the hoped-for returns are not forthcoming, we need to ask if some modification or tweaking of the scheme is in order to try and meet the objectives behind it. At the same time, I do hope that our own Singapore law firms are not overlooked. This is because we need our own strong local institutions who are steeped in our national culture and values, those who will not close their offices here when times are hard or when they are directed to by head offices thousands of miles away. This is much the same thinking that the Government had in liberalising the banking sector when it is stated that it hoped that Singapore would have two strong local banks which would stick by Singapore through thick and thin. The fact that we have three such banks now is a bonus. At this juncture, I should further state my interest as a partner in a Singapore law firm as indeed are several other Members of this House. The concern here is that the top talent in corporate law and the cutting edge corporate transactions, for example, the large M&A deals, the major financings, the high profile projects, would gravitate to the international firms which can now practise Singapore law in those areas. What the Singapore law firms would be left doing would be mainly litigation and property conveyancing.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100. It has been about two years since the Government sweeping measures to liberalise the legal sector. A measure that attracted the most headlines was to allow foreign law firms to apply for Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licence which would allow them to practise Singapore law in corporate and financial transactions. The key reason for this was to support the growth of Singapore as a financial centre and by staunching a brain drain of our local legal talent through creating opportunities for them to gain international exposure in corporate law without having to leave our shores. I should declare my interest as a member of the Committee chaired by Justice V K Rajah which made those recommendations, which were subsequently accepted by the Government. So I do support this liberalisation. But the question arises: have these measures borne fruit thus far and what lies ahead? I would like to ask the Minister, since the QFLP licences were awarded at the end of the 2008, whether this move has led to positive benefits for the financial sector. I appreciate that it may be difficult to come up with quantitative data, especially for 2009, which was a recession year. But have we at least obtained feedback from banks and corporates that this has led to greater breadth and depth of legal services available here, or that the one-stop shop concept of an international firm, which can also cover Singapore law issues, has materialised and delivered better service to its end-users?”
“While these figures are well below the norm in the west of something closer to 40%, the trend is disturbing. We clearly need to focus more efforts on the rehabilitation of offenders, and to try to reintegrate them into society so that they will not go back to their old ways. I do ask for initiatives the Ministry has to tackle this problematic issue. Otherwise, we are breeding a segment of society that are career or life-time criminals. Turning to drug abuse, the number of drug offenders was stable last year compared to 2008. But the number of new addicts arrested and abusers of ecstasy and other party drugs have gone up. While we want to grow our country as a lifestyle destination, a great place to live, work and play with a vibrant lifestyle, this is probably one aspect of entertainment we do not want to see developing. With the opening of the two Integrated Resorts this year and the substantial increase in visitors and night spots and entertainment clubs that will accompany that, these statistics are set to rise. I therefore do ask the Ministry what measures they do have in place to counter this trend. Home Affairs, indeed the services under the Ministry, play a vital part in Singaporeans' lives. In many ways, they are victims of their own success. It is precisely because overall there is a low rate of crime, and that calm and peace reins in this country that their importance is often overlooked by our citizens. But we simply cannot afford to do that or we will start down the slippery slope towards a society ridden by crime and instability. Terrorism”
“I further note that much of the modest increase in expenditure for services like the police are for additional resources to host major events planned for this year, like the upcoming Youth Olympic Games. Otherwise, their operating expenditures are almost flat compared to the last financial year. At the same time, it is show-piece events like the Youth Olympic Games which present tempting opportunities for the terrorist groups who seek to disrupt our society. I therefore do ask whether we are devoting sufficient resources to our homeland security services who, besides coping with the growing demands of a more difficult-to-please public, have to deal with terrorist threats that simply will not go away. Specifically, are we spending enough on intelligence services and on maintaining our links with intelligence agencies abroad, as it does appear that the greatest weapon against an invisible enemy is the intelligence gathering to try and figure out their next move, their next target and to prevent them from ever carrying out their evil plans rather than to just try and pick up the pieces after the damage has already been done? Turning now to the prevention of crime, it is heartening to note that the overall crime rate remains low. It has dropped from 727 per 100,000 of population in 2007 to 685 in 2008, and down further last year to 652. The police should be lauded for these credible results. But less heartening are the recidivism figures, which track the percentage of convicts who reoffend within two years of their release from prison. This has gone up from 24.2% in 2007 to 25.1% in 2008 and then to 28% in 2009. The estimate given for 2010 is even higher – 30%.”
“Mdm Chairman, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100. We live in a dangerous world. It seems unreal to say so when Singapore appears safe and peaceful on the outside. But trouble lurks not very far away. Over the last few years, we have witnessed terrorist bombings, several of them, in neighbouring Indonesia and, more recently, in Pakistan. We have read of gun battles and acts of violence in Thailand and the Philippines. And just across the Causeway, some Singaporeans have fallen victims themselves to criminals on their travels there. We even had the sad occasion of the first Singaporean fatality from terrorist acts in that infamous attack on the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai. It is therefore fully necessary that we remain on our guard and indeed strengthen our defences against security threats within our shores. The recapture of Mas Selamat does not mean that the JI threat has been eliminated, as it is a feature of the loose cell structure of these organisations that new leaders can emerge and carry on their destructive work. This Budget and the supply estimates for this financial year 2010/2011 project a modest increase in expenditure for MHA and very minor increases in personnel for vital services like the Civil Defence, Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and Prisons. There appears to be no planned increases under the establishment list for the police and narcotics enforcement officers. I do appreciate we are making heavy investments to transform the economy, such as the $5.5 billion to be spent over five years to try and increase our productivity. But we simply cannot afford to neglect our homeland security while the threats from without and within Singapore still loom on the horizon.”
“A finance professional might come to Singapore and start a hedge fund here, which helps to boost our financial sector. A regional director might choose to relocate himself here which would lead to regional establishments coming with him which, in turn, creates more jobs and which, in turn, brings more tax revenue. These movers and shakers are influenced in their decisions by many factors. These include housing, schools, the environment and crime rate. It is not the only factor by any means but their personal tax rates are usually an important one. It is correct that our tax rates, even for high earners, are lower than most countries in Asia. But our service-oriented finance industry dominated economy is not competing as such with most of them, but mainly with Hong Kong as we jostle for the spot of the pre-eminent financial centre in the Asian time zone. This is one segment of the economy where foreign worker levies play little or no part, and yet it is still key to enhancing productivity in the sense of attracting the right foreign talent to Singapore. I appreciate that the heavy investments in productivity growth in this year's Budget may have made it difficult to fit in any adjustment of personal income tax rates, but I trust the Minister has one eye, or perhaps both, on such a move in the not too distant future. On that note, I support the Budget. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE”
“If something untoward were to happen, do we then rush back to implement another Jobs Credit Scheme? It seems to me to be prudent to keep the Jobs Credit Scheme in place for the whole of 2010 and that, hopefully, the recovery will be on a firmer footing by the end of the year. At the very least, I hope the Minister can review the situation when we come towards the end of the second quarter to see if our companies still need the extra help and if the retrenchment numbers are still under control. The second issue I would raise is our personal income tax regime or rather the lack of any adjustments to the same. This is not about goodies for individuals or having more handouts in what was anticipated to be an election year Budget. This goes beyond the discrepancy between the flat rate of 17% for companies and the top marginal rate of 20% for individuals, although this discrepancy does lead to some uneven effects between enterprises which would organise themselves as either corporations or partnerships. Rather, the more serious difference lies with our closest competitor in Hong Kong, where individuals are taxed at a flat rate – 15%. Given that ours is a marginal tax rate regime, the individual who is tax resident in Singapore only starts to lose out to his Hong Kong counterpart when his annual income is just under S$500,000. At levels of S$1 million and above, the differences can be considerable. It seems insensitive, certainly politically insensitive, to be talking about reducing tax rates for high earners when many people are still struggling to get by. But a large portion of these high earners – and I am talking about foreigner high earners – are talented individuals who are being courted by many countries for what they can bring with them.”
“In the United States, there have been various calls for and against withdrawing their stimulus package, which amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has hinted that it needs to be done before too long for fear of igniting inflation. But the current answer seems to be "but not just yet". The earliest now, analysts predict, that some of the measures will start to be withdrawn is the second half of this year. Even in China, which has been the locomotive of recovery, certainly in Asia, the government is moving cautiously. Despite widespread expectation that the injection of liquidity would be cut back as the economy registered 9% growth last year, their leaders have indicated that the time has not come yet to withdraw the various stimulus measures. This is relevant for Singapore because key features of the resilience package introduced last year were the Jobs Credit Scheme and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative (SRI). The SRI ensured that banks continued to lend to businesses even in the downturn, while the Jobs Credit Scheme helped reduce the retrenchment of workers by defraying part of the cost of the CPF contribution that employers had to make for them. While the SRI will continue for another year, albeit at a reduced level, the Jobs Credit Scheme will come to an end after the middle of this year. I have no issue with the step-down amounts payable under the Jobs Credit Scheme this year, as it is not intended as a permanent feature, and this serves to wean companies of depending on it. However, the road to recovery is still fraught with challenges, as can be seen from the stance of the larger countries and relatively small movements that can still greatly influence our open export driven economy.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I applaud this year's Budget for its bold move – focus on productivity gains in order to grow our maturing economy. It puts in place financial and taxation measures to implement the recommendations of the ESC to take our country through to the next phase of its economic development. The devil, as always, lies in the details. The higher foreign worker levies, which attracted much of the media's attention, are to be balanced by various productivity initiatives such as the productivity and innovation credit, which is aimed primarily at SMEs, and the $2 billion National Productivity Fund to boost productivity, particularly in industries such as the construction industry. The details on how these credits are to be claimed or how these monies will be used are being released this month and will, no doubt, be closely scrutinised to see how they can yield the benefits that have been promised. Otherwise, we may simply experience rising costs from companies utilising more local workers who are more scarce and command higher salaries, or from employers passing on the higher levy fee without the corresponding increase in output, which would defeat the very strategies they were designed to promote. I would like to speak on two areas which were not covered in this year's Budget and hope they can be given due consideration by the Minister for Finance, if not in this year's Budget, then perhaps in future Budgets or even off-Budget measures. The first relates to the tricky question of when to start pulling back the various measures that were introduced in the dark days of the post-Lehman Brothers collapse. Our country is not the only one facing this poser.”
“Turning now to the Goods and Services Tax or GST - this is vital in shifting the burden of taxation from being solely on income-generation to being partially on consumption. This is integral to our policies to encourage wealth-creation, and cannot be discarded. But could we not, in these troubled times, borrow an idea from the innovative Jobs Credit Scheme, and apply this by analogy to the GST, that is, not to suspend or reduce the tax, but to subsidise the cost for the consumer? We could give out GST vouchers with a difference. This would not act like simple cash rebates which could be used for other expenditure other than GST, and which might not even be spent at all. Rather, it would be a voucher to defray the cost ofthe actual GST incurred on an actual purchase, so that one would need to spend on consumables to redeem the voucher. For instance, a $7 voucher could be used to make a $100 purchase “GST-free”. Likewise, $70 in vouchers for $1,000 in purchases, even $700 in vouchers for $10,000 in spending. Taking the last example, giving out $700 in GST vouchers might cost the Government less than the 20% income tax rebate cappedat $2,000, which was given out at our last Budget. But it could spark off five times the amount of consumer spending. Whatever the measures to be adopted, the goal should be the same - to spur Singaporeans to consume, for the sake of the domestic economy. This is not intended to change the nature of our export-oriented economy, but to shift the balance a little bit away from an over-dependence on overseas markets that are beyond our control. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. 5.45 pm”
“As the recovery commences and gathers momentum, companies and individuals plan their next move to take best advantage of fresh opportunities that arise. Maintaining a tax regime which is competitive with other choice locations for businesses and individuals is a key weapon in the attraction and retention of talent, to drive Singapore’s next phase of growth. When one looks at the bill after a meal, I am sure many of you have had the same reaction - which is, how did the total add up to so much? That is, until you factor in the 10% service charge and the 7% GST. The extra 17% makes quite an impact on any expense that many consumers are already wondering if they should incur. When the 10% service charge was first introduced many, many moons ago, it was intended to replace tipping, which was considered troublesome and uneven, while rewarding good service. The fact is presently it fulfils neither purpose. Most establishments routinely absorb the service charge as part of their revenue, and still leave a space on your credit card chit for you to add a tip. At the same time, service standards remain highly erratic. Why not abolish the service charge and leave consumers to decide how much they wish to pay for the service they receive. This should be a sure-fire way to incentivise good service. Yes, some restaurants would jack up their prices to compensate for the loss of this ill-named service charge. But at least, the real prices would become more transparent. And consumers could compare prices to those eating places which have not done so and make their own choices. At the end of the day, anything that increases the choice and range of options for the consumer will appeal to him, and likely spur him to consume more.”
“But should we do more to increase the level of consumer spending here, to raise the proportion of our GDP made up of consumption, and reduce what is perhaps an overweening dependence on exports to fuel our economy? I believe we should. Part of the reason for doing this is as a matter of balance. The bulk of our GDP will still stem from our exports of goods and services, that will never change. But there is no need for it to be overwhelmingly so. Part of the reason is to build some level of buffer when overseas markets are in a tailspin, as they are right now. After all, we have our own hotels, restaurants and shops here in Singapore that depend on customers continuing to spend. Previously, stores and restaurants in Orchard Road and other central areas depended mainly on tourist arrivals. But in times like these, when tourism numbers are sharply down, they are badly affected. As for the small provision shops in our heartlands, their livelihood suffers when residents here cut back on spending. What could we do to stimulate demand? I have a few suggestions, although undoubtedly those tasked with this responsibility could come up with other, and more innovative, ideas. The first suggestion I have relates to personal taxation. A cut in personal income tax is regarded by economists (albeit not universally) as stimulating consumer demand. The issue is made more acute, by the growing gap between corporate tax - which was cut in the latest Budget to 17% - and our top rate of personal tax at 20%. The gap seems even larger when compared to the flat personal tax rate in Hong Kong of 15%. Which brings me to yet another reason for closing this gap. Even in this downturn, the competition for talent is not over.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to add my voice to the Motion of Thanks for the President’s Address. Clearly the challenges facing Singapore have taken on a new slant since the opening of this Eleventh Parliament in November 2006, and the President’s Address was a timely exposition of the road, certainly bumpy in stages, ahead. By far the biggest bump in the road is the economic swoon that has engulfed the world. The Budget this year was spot-on in focussing on the preservation of jobs, the re-training of workers and the easing of finance for businesses. This is and must remain the priority, and measures such as the Jobs Credit should be maintained while the threat of large scale retrenchment continues to loom on the horizon. Programmes such as SPUR help to equip our workforce with new skills to meet the new demands of an ever-changing world, and should be continued even after this downturn becomes a distant memory. But such measures serve more to lower the costs of businesses, to try and persuade them to retain, and re-train, their workforce. They are not aimed at stimulating demand, which comes overwhelmingly from our export markets, like the United States and Europe. It is precisely because those economies are so badly affected, that our exports are in the doldrums. The rise of protectionism in those countries may mean that even when they do recover, the level of exports those countries will accept will not be same as before. It is correct for Singapore to remain an open, export-oriented economy. The small size of our domestic market is an inescapable limiting factor. It is simply not possible, nor perhaps desirable, to have an economy structured like the United States, where two-thirds of GDP is made up of personal consumption.”
“It is sometimes fashionable, but over-simplistic, to treat such a freedom as an unmitigated right, which exists in some abstract state lording over such menial concerns like public order and national security. But even our very own Singapore Constitution provides in Article 14 that the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably is subject to such restrictions as Parliament may consider necessary in the interests of national security and to maintain public order. One need only look at recent events nearby to see what can happen when the right to demonstrate goes awry. The recent procession, or invasion, of the "red-shirts" in Pattaya has caused an important regional summit to be postponed and untold damage to Thailand’s reputation. It comes after earlier invasions of the Parliament building and the airport in Bangkok by the "yellow-shirts", which caused death and damage and brought about the overthrow of a government. Demonstrators and protest marchers often seek to do more than just express their views. They strive to create such disruption and disturbance in order to gain more currency for their views then they could rightfully achieve at the ballot box, or on the sheer merits of their arguments. The right to express one’s views is an important one, nay a vital one. But it must still be balanced by other people’s rights not to have their lives disrupted or their safety threatened or to have the political process perverted. This Bill strives to achieve that balance, and that is why I support the Bill.”
“Indeed, it is wide enough to be construed as covering a whole range of activities that would not be considered by most people to be cause-related. This undermines the transparency and logic behind this Bill, and thus will detract from its acceptance by the public. Nor, in my view, is it required to achieve the objectives of maintaining public order and security. If the commemoration of an event is really intended to support a particular cause, the first or second limb of the definition will capture it sufficiently. So I do invite the Minister to review the definition section and see if the third limb is really necessary. The second area I highlight relates to the right of appeal to the Minister, against the refusal, or revocation, of a permit. This is the only and final right of appeal. However, the Bill is silent on whether reasons must be given by the Police for the decision being appealed against. Yet the person appealing must specify the grounds on which the appeal is being made. How can he do that effectively, if he does not know the reasons for the refusal or revocation? It should be borne in mind that the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act requires such reasons to be provided where a permit is refused. Under the Miscellaneous Offences Act, reasons have to be given where a permit is revoked. So having to provide reasons under the Bill will not be ground-breaking, and it will allow for more effective appeal process. In this way, it will assuage the concerns of those who see the Bill as a clamping down on assemblies and processions. Which brings me to my final point, as regards the perceived impact of this Bill on freedom of expression or, more correctly, the freedom to gather or march with others to express support for a particular cause.”
“Again, although the Minister has the power to issue prohibitions of cause-related activities, that power must be exercised by reference to particular areas, particular periods of time or even to a particular assembly or procession, which the power can then be tailored to the specific risks that are envisaged. Further, where previously a police officer had only the option on occasion of arresting someone who was threatening to commit an offence, he will now have the additional power to direct that person to move along. This has the advantage of defusing a potential confrontation which can arise when the person being arrested, or his supporters, feel that some grave injustice is being perpetrated. Or that they have nothing to lose by escalating the situation. This is not to say that there is no room for refinement in this Bill. Allow me to cite just two key areas. The first relates to the crucial definition of the purpose behind the activity, which makes it cause-related and hence subject to regulation under the Bill. There are three limbs to this definition: (i) to demonstrate support or opposition to the views of any person, group or government, (ii) to publicise a cause or campaign; or (iii) to mark or commemorate any event. This is more or less taken from the Miscellaneous Offences Act, which is one of the two current governing legislations. While one can see the basis for including the first two limbs of the definition, I question if the third – to commemorate any event – really adds anything to the rationale behind the Bill. The event to be commemorated may have nothing to do with any cause or campaign, or with a group championing such a cause.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the current regime for dealing with assemblies or gatherings and processions or marches in public places, leaves something to be desired. First, there is an arbitrary distinction drawn between assemblies and processions involving five or more persons, and less than that number. Secondly, activities held to promote a particular cause or campaign are not differentiated from recreational, social and commercial activities, where the considerations of public order are clearly different. This Bill seeks to address those anomalies. It provides a separate framework for regulating assemblies and processions which are organised for the purpose of promoting a cause or campaign, regardless of the number of persons involved. In that regard, it affords a more rational and transparent platform to manage public order and security concerns that arise from such activities. At the same time, by segregating the regulation of such cause-related activities, it in effect liberalises the regime governing recreational and social activities, which carry a lower level of security and public order risks in general. In that regard, I am heartened to note the Minister informing the House that 50% of the activities currently requiring a permit, primarily recreational and social, will no longer require a permit under the new regime. Nor does this Bill seek to regulate cause-related activities with a blanket, heavy hand. There are a number of measures to calibrate the approach. Although the general requirement for assemblies and processions is for advance notice to be given and a permit to be obtained, there is now provision for "unrestricted areas" where such activities can be organised without a permit, and without even having to give advance notice.”
“Yes, we need talent to devise the corporate deals that drive Singapore's financial sector. But we also need talent to become the next generation's judges, Attorney-Generals, Public Prosecutors and Ministers of Law. Such persons would not only possess the requisite legal acumen, but they would also be steep in our Singapore values and culture to act as a future guardian of our society. If all our top talent was hired away by foreign firms, subject to direction from New York, London or Hong Kong, perhaps even residing there, would we have the judicial system that is ranked at the top in most surveys of international competitiveness and is the envy of others? We need to strengthen our local firms' ability to compete by offering financial and other incentives to upgrade themselves so that they can stand toe-to-toe with the best international firms. We need local companies including TLCs to give local firms a chance to compete. I emphasise that local firms must still prove themselves. Of course, we cannot simply have a "by Singaporean" edict. And if we need to, we should not be afraid to temper the pace of liberalisation. There is no turning back in terms of liberalising the legal profession in Singapore. But as with other policies of this Government, we should steer our own course at our own speed to achieve the best outcomes for Singapore. Recognising Crime Victims' Rights”
“In the United States, probably the most heavily lawyered nation in the world, law is a postgraduate qualification which means lawyers spend several years in the pursuit of non-legal studies and are thus considered to be more well-rounded and matured before they embark on the specialised calling of the bar. Which system would work best for Singapore? I believe the British model has much to commend it. The cutting age transactions in mergers and acquisitions, dead oil, equity capital markets are lugged far more quickly and far more thoroughly in a real life setting rather than in academia where almost by definition, the study of such matters lags a few years behind. At the same time, the shorter three-year degree course will make it more accessible to those who wish to benefit it from the analytical training required through the study of law but who do not wish themselves to practise as lawyers. Turning now to the liberalisation of legal practice, the issuance of six QFLP licences was ground-breaking. This would enable those licensed foreign firms to practise Singapore law. This in turn would help to widen the availability of top-notch legal services here and broaden the use and appeal of Singapore law. As a member of the committee chaired by the Justice of Appeal V K Rajah that proposed this measure which has been accepted by the Government, I do believe that it is the right step for the country. However, care must still be exercised and progress monitored to avoid the situation where our local law firms are stripped bare of the cream of Singapore legal talent. Foreign law firms with their greater size and financial resources have the ability to cherry-pick up young lawyers out of the local firms, the legal service and even right out of university.”
“Sir, the various measures to liberalise the practice of Singapore law for various law firms, either through enhanced joint law ventures or through qualifying foreign law practices (QFLP) licences are welcomed for they will add to the breadth and depth of legal talent and enhance Singapore's position as a leading financial services centre. However, more reforms are still required. In the case of the legal education for locally qualified lawyers, we do need to question whether the existing set-up of a four-year university course followed by a six months' practice law course is still valid and appropriate. In the case of liberalisation of the legal profession, the situation still needs to be monitored carefully and fine-tune as appropriate to preserve the strength of the local bar and to ensure our home-grown law firms do not get hollowed out. First, as regards to legal education. The present regime for local graduates, four years in university, six months of the vocational course and six months of pupilage should be revamped. The issue here is one of balance. The United Kingdom, long renowned for the excellence of its legal education, subject budding lawyers to a three-year degree course and then a one-year practice course and for those who inspire to be barristers or court lawyers, this is then followed by a one-year of pupilage in chambers. For would-be solicitors, they do a two-year traineeship at the law firm. In other words, there is less purely academic study and a better to on-the-job practical training.”
“Improving an already efficient system can only help Singaporeans to work, play and live better. Land Transport and Traffic Management”