Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 38 of 46.
“I also urge that such project work for CL learning be done in classrooms as much as possible to avoid parental assistance, although speaking from personal experience, this is unlikely to be forthcoming even from the English-speaking homes. I further urge the MOE to monitor the effects that such project-based work have on pupils' stress levels and learning outcomes. The Report also talks about resting of a wider range of skills instead of what is essentially memorisation of Chinese characters. Again, this follows the direction the teaching of non-language subjects are taking. But perhaps we should have graded levels of difficulty and confine such testing of high-order skills to CL and HCL, and not the Bridging or Reinforcement modules, which are essentially coaching classes. Prepping the next generation Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as part of my personal preparation for this debate, I looked up the Ministerial Statement by then-DPM Lee on the last CL review in 1999. I am struck by the fact that there is an uncanny similarity between the review at that time and what we are now debating. The problems that led to this present review were already highlighted some five years ago, eg, rising percentages of EL-speaking homes, growing economic and political importance of China, and the need for a Chinese elite. The objective of wanting every Singaporean to study his mother tongue for as long as possible and to as high a level as he is capable of was also similar. In fact, the same company, Forbes Research, was also commissioned to do a survey for that review. However, most of the recommendations were then targeted at secondary schools.”
“I wonder if it is then wise to base such a fundamental shift in teaching approach on what seems to be something experimental at this stage. Also, as a substantial number of CL educators will tell us that writing and reading are mutually reinforcing and one should not be emphasised at the expense of the other. How then can we ensure that we will not be dumbing down overall standards, while taking cognisance of the genuine difficulties some pupils face in CL learning? This, in fact, is the de facto primary concern of the Chinese intelligentsia which has led to much public debate and misgivings over the changes made to CL learning through the years. Each successive change to Chinese Language learning has been largely seen by the Chinese intelligentsia as yielding to populist pressures which will result in lower standards of language learning and, ultimately, a culturally stunted generation of younger people. Even the new pedagogical approach is seen by some as a form of concession to pupils with weaker language aptitude. Additionally, the CL learning seems to be converging with the learning of the other subjects as schools move towards a more continuous school-based assessment regime. This could well create more stress for pupils who have been drilled by years of emphasis on what the Report calls "high stakes national examinations". I urge the Ministry to promote group-based assignments that can allow mingling of pupils of varying abilities and their project work. Exposure in this way could help the weaker pupils. The stronger ones will still be able to shine in their individual assessments.”
“This way, she would still have an opportunity to learn the words. When I went to school the next time to pick up another set of homework, after having handed in the earlier set, the Chinese teacher made this remark to me in Chinese: "Zhe ge zhen de shi fei chang ji kuai. Wei shen mo zhe ge xie zi, shang ban pian tong tong shi tui de, bu guo xia ban pian tong tong shi cuo de?" She said that it was very funny but you know for this set of homework because my daughter got the strokes right initially, but somehow got them all wrong at the back. That was because mummy wrote it. I must say that both my older children are not averse to learning Chinese, and they got through the PSLE Chinese examinations reasonably well. In fact, I must confess that they help me now with my Chinese speeches as their command of the language is definitely much better than mine. However, admittedly, they had to spend a disproportionate amount of time learning Chinese Language in order to do well in the examinations. And I believe this story finds echoes in many, many families in Singapore. Making learning Chinese more interesting through the use of more songs, verses, reading, recitation and other activities with less emphasis on character memorisation for the younger children would help avoid killing the interest in and a joy of learning Chinese for these children. Hopefully, this new approach would, as the Committee envisages in the Report, allow the students to recognise enough characters to read age-appropriate children's literature and thus enthuse them to read at a younger age. Yet, the Report also seems to imply that the pedadogical approach of "Recognise first, Write later" is not yet conventional wisdom in language learning, even in CL-speaking countries.”
“The Report notes that it is important to develop students' reading ability early in order to create and sustain their interest in the language. The survey conducted by the Committee confirms that an inordinate amount of time is spent on script writing and character stroke memorisation. The Committee recommends that, across all levels, the current emphasis on writing and, in particular, character stroke memorisation for examinations - the cause of much aversion to Chinese Language learning for many children - needs to be changed. The MOE has accepted the Committee's recommendation to shift its teaching approach to "Recognise first, Write later". These changes in pedagogical approach are welcome as the way Chinese is taught from the time I studied the subject in the 1960s to 1970s and now appears to have remained largely unchanged, except for the introduction of hanyu pinyin and the simplified Chinese characters. All these years, the emphasis remains on spelling, dictation and writing passages from memory even in the lower primary. I remember my son, when he was in Primary 3 some five years ago, suddenly crying out at 10 pm in the night, as he was still struggling to finish his Chinese writing homework, which can sometimes amount to about 10 pages. He asked me, "Mom, why do I need to do so much writing in Chinese?" A year earlier, my eldest daughter had chicken pox then and could not attend school for two weeks. I had to bring her homework back for her, one of which was Chinese writing. And there were many pages of Chinese writing homework. Taking pity on her as she was still rather sick, I decided to help her write some of the Chinese words. I thought she would write some of the words on each page and I would complete the rest.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes proposed by the Review Committee come at a time when the whole education edifice is being reconstructed. Many parents, pupils, principals, administrators and teachers are reeling from the stream of changes the system has undergone over the past 12-18 months, such as through-train, new forms of school ranking, Sports School, Arts School, changes in pedagogical emphasis to continuous and project assessments, and so on and so forth. This evening, we are here to debate yet more changes. But fundamental issues are at work here, and however unsettling these changes might be, I believe they are vital if we are to survive as a nation. For embedded in our mother tongues are the rich cultural heritage of the vast and ancient civilisations from which our ancestors derived and which anchors us to our Asian identity. If we deny our roots and allow westernisation to totally engulf us, our society would be greatly impoverished. I, therefore, applaud the spirit of the Committee's recommendations and am in general agreement with the main thrusts to deal with the structural problems hindering Chinese Language learning, especially those from mainly English-speaking homes and, in extreme cases, driving some Singaporeans to migrate. But I have four concerns which I would like to highlight using the P mnemonic and they are, firstly, pedagogical principles and approaches; secondly, prepping the next generation; thirdly, provision of adequate and appropriate teaching resources and, finally, promoting CL in the wider community. Pedagogical principles and approaches The most fundamental change proposed in the current White Paper, in my opinion, is the pedagogical approach to the teaching of Chinese Language.”
“Sir, I note the Minister's reply that investigations are still underway. But regardless of this, because of the possibility of his having escaped through the border, was there any tightening of border control measures after this incident? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as the House knows, we take our border security seriously. And, indeed, particularly after September 11, many measures have been implemented to tighten our borders. As of now, following our assessment, whatever gaps that may appear, arising from Police investigations, have been closed up.”
“Sir, a point of clarification. I would like to note that I am actually in agreement that there ought to be an avenue for adjudication review because some of the sums in dispute could be very, very large. What I would like to urge the Minister to review in the Bill is the right to further appeal in a court of law after an adjudication review. This is because in clause 21 of the Bill where it provides for the right of appeal to a court or tribunal, it does not stipulate any condition under which the respondent or the claimant could appeal to the court, unlike the adjudication review which actually stipulates that it must exceed a certain stipulated sum. I am requesting that if you allow an appeal to the court without any pre-condition, it would mean that the adjudication is not final. It is really interim finality. Even though the sub-contractor gets paid, at the end of the day, every progress payment under dispute could theoretically go up to the court for appeal. I am requesting that the Minister consider looking into allowing for the right to appeal to a court only on a point of law and not on quantum or fact, which is in line with other legislation.”
“The shortcomings in the building and construction industry pertaining to payment discipline by main contractors in favour of subcontractors have been crying out for attention for some time. I and others in the industry are pleased that the Ministry is now putting in place legislation to ensure that everyone in the industry gets paid honest wages for an honest day's work. This would go some way to help stabilise a declining but, nonetheless, still important sector of our economy. However, I note that the SOP is not an elixir and would not completely prevent the occurrence of payment problems. For instance, even in New South Wales, Australia, which implemented the SOP in 1997, headline news about the collapse of a main contractor owing millions of dollars to a subcontractor still occurs from time to time. The Ministry, in consultation with the key industry players and stakeholders, should continue to monitor and revise the SOP Act, as well as look into redefining other areas which have contributed to the woes of the industry, such as the tender system and the accreditation of contractors. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Why then do we still allow for the appeal process? Moreover, the majority of the disputes that arise would concern monetary or financial matters related to works done or goods and services supplied, which would be technical in nature and best settled by the adjudicators, with the relevant professional competence. In fact, I understand that there is no provision for appeal via the court for progress payment disputes under the New South Wales SOP Act. Even if it is felt that the appeal process should be provided for, we should only allow this on a point of law and not on facts or quantum. This would be similar to other similar legislation in Singapore that provides for a tribunal to settle disputes such as the Property Tax Act and the Land Titles Strata Act, which have the Valuation Review Board and the Strata Titles Board, respectively. Appeals for cases first heard via these Boards could only be made on points of law. Fifthly, standard forms of contract. The current standard forms of contract used for public sector projects as well as those used by main contractors for private sector projects, namely, the public sector standard conditions of contract and the SIA conditions of contract, respectively, have terms and conditions which do not conform with the payment timelines prescribed in the Bill and would have to be reviewed. Furthermore, it is noted that there is currently no standard contract between the main contractor and the subcontractor. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would be looking into prescribing the use of a standard domestic contract which would comply with the requirements of the Bill.”
“The developer could then choose to pay the subcontractor direct to deter him from exercising his right to stop work and keep the project going and subsequently deduct this sum from the main contractor. This is to overcome the concern over any potential negative impact, such as delay in the completion of the project, which could lead to penalties being incurred by the developer for late completion. Whilst direct payment from owners/developers to subcontractors would help to avoid suspension of work, I would like to ask the Minister, since the proposed Act would not over-ride the current law on insolvency, how then is the issue of the main contractor becoming insolvent resolved without jeopardising the legitimate interest of the subcontractors? Fourthly, appeal channels. Clause 18 of the SOP Bill allows a respondent who is aggrieved by the adjudicator's determination to apply for a review of the adjudicated amount. Clause 21 of the Bill states that the adjudication determination is binding on the parties, unless or until the dispute is finally determined by a court or a tribunal. This would imply that parties to the contract could appeal to the court if they are unhappy with the adjudication determination, even after the review. Would not allowing the appeal process defeat the intention of the SOP to facilitate payment for work done and provide for quick and low cost resolution of the payment disputes through adjudication? This means that the adjudication, even after a review, would only have interim finality, which could be overturned on appeal in a court. Under the Bill, the adjudicator already has the power to determine the adjudication application and if the respondent is aggrieved, he could apply for a review subject to the conditions stipulated.”
“This is particularly important as the Bill permits respondents to apply for an adjudication review subject to stipulated conditions. Furthermore, in order not to unnecessarily add to the cost of an already beleaguered industry, adjudication fees ought to be kept reasonable. I would like to ask the Minister who would set the minimum relevant qualifications and experience required of an adjudicator and if any training programme will be developed to train appointed adjudicators. What assurance could be given that the adjudication fees would be reasonable and would not unnecessarily add to the overall construction cost in the future, even though there is some cap to the limits now? Also, what cost would be included when arriving at the adjudication fees that would be charged? Additionally, it is noted that in New South Wales, there are eight Authorised Nominating Authorities, equivalent to our ANBs, appointed by the government. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would consider eventually appointing more than one ANB as this would help ensure that all adjudication applications are expeditiously and efficiently dealt with. This could also introduce some element of competition to help keep adjudication fees acceptable. Thirdly, direct payments from owners/developers to subcontractors. The Bill sets clear time-lines for payments to be made and gives a subcontractor the right to stop work if he is not paid by the contractor within the stipulated time. Similarly, a supplier could remove his uninstalled materials from the worksite if he is not paid by the fixed time frame. However, the subcontractor and supplier would have to inform the developer and main contractor of their intentions.”
“Hence, most construction and supply contracts would fall under the purview of this Bill. Making the proposed SOP Act applicable throughout the construction value chain will not only facilitate payments and cashflow, but also help streamline industry practices, instill discipline among the various key players and bring about a more orderly industry. This would, in turn, result in some badly needed improvements to the standards of the industry since claim submissions will have to be carefully prepared and contracts between different players in the industry standardised with regard to payment terms and dispute resolution mechanisms. Secondly, standards of adjudicators and adjudication fees. The Bill provides for a low-cost adjudication system to settle payment disputes in the shortest possible time. It allows a claimant to apply for adjudication of his claims if the respondent fails to respond, pay or dispute the payment claims. The Authorised Nominating Body (ANB) must appoint an adjudicator within seven days of receipt of the adjudication application. Under the Bill, the adjudicator, for most cases, has only 7-14 days to determine the adjudication, depending on the type of case and unless the adjudicator himself requests for a longer timeframe and this is agreed by the claimant. Given this short timeframe and the fact that some claims can be highly technical and complicated, adjudicators will need to be well-qualified and experienced professionals. They should be from the cream of the profession and ideally, some training should be provided to the appointed adjudicators so that all will work on a consistent set of principles when determining the value of claims.”
“It voids, as the Minister just acknowledged, not just the "pay when paid" clause, but also the "pay if paid" practice that allows contractors to pay their sub-contractors only after being paid by project owners. In fact, it is well-known in the industry that many cash-strapped contractors have not been paying their sub-contractors on time even when they themselves are paid. Worse still, some main contractors have gone bust, creating ripples down the chain to sub-contractors and forcing many to eventually also go bust. Sir, in my view, the SOP Bill is generally well-drafted. It should help resolve some of the major bugbears of the sub-contractors and improve their cashflow. I would now like to comment on some benefits offered by the SOP as well as some concerns that could be taken up in future reviews of the Act. Sir, I have five points. Firstly, wide scope of the Bill's application. The SOP applies to the entire value chain of the construction industry, not just contractors and sub-contractors, but also developers and consultants. It applies not just to construction work done, but also to related goods and services supplied in the industry and to any other related matter. Construction work is given the broadest definition so that virtually all types of construction works fall within the Bill. Even though the SOP applies only to written contracts, unlike that of the New South Wales Act which applies to both written and oral contracts, the definition of what constitutes a written contract under clause 43 is very wide. It even includes contracts which are merely recorded by one of the parties or a third party with the concurrence of the two parties to the contract, as well as contracts which are not wholly made in writing, but of which the matter in dispute is in writing.”
“Sir, for some time now, the building and construction industry has been plagued by a series of headline-grabbing debacles. What readily come to mind are high profile fiascos such as falling windows, the Nicoll Highway collapse and Marine Terrace and other incidents where contractors have gone bust, usually in spectacular fashion. In many ways, the problems stem from the sector's relatively poor performance over a prolonged period. The building and construction industry is the only sector that has continued to shrink despite growth in practically all other sectors. The sector has been so besieged with many problems that industry players have recently even found some cause to rejoice when it was reported that the collective net loss of listed construction firms has been reduced by half to $230 million in the last financial year, compared to a staggering loss of $455 million in the previous period. But beyond economics, there are deeper structural problems, one of which is the subject of this Bill pertaining to the rights of eligible parties to seek progress payment for work done. Sir, it would appear that in the construction industry, honest wages for an honest day's work and that people go into business to earn a better living and not to commit suicide, are not dictums. Sir, it is acknowledged that the Security of Payment (SOP) Bill is the outcome of extensive discussions between MND and stakeholders to help prevent incidents, such as the Marine Terrace fiasco. It is aimed chiefly at addressing the problem of building contractors, particularly sub-contractors not getting paid for work done for months, or sometimes, even for years.”
“I understand that HDB is replacing windows of flats which are less than five years old from the date of taking or handing over and there is some sense of urgency among the other residents as regards replacement of the rivets. I would like to ask the Minister if the HDB can consider giving information regarding, say, the estimated cost of replacement of such windows, as well as the standards that will meet HDB's requirements so that they would not be unwittingly taken advantage of.”
“We have to start from the point of view that it could not be artificially maintained or otherwise it would be unsustainable, either for the company or the economy. It just means higher taxes for subsidised jobs. And I think we should take things in perspective - 97-99% of workers earn a decent day's wages by giving good value to the job and we should not distort our labour market or our economic practices in trying to help this minority. So, the starting point is that the jobs could be redesigned, given higher productivity and better premium to justify the wages. This is a process. There is no magic bullet. It would not be a systemic quick sweep across our economy, but it would have to be taken sector by sector, group by group, occupation by occupation. But I am confident, given the positive results of our efforts so far, there is no reason why we cannot continue to have better results. Let me also make one observation. No developed economy in the world has managed to solve fully its structurally unemployed, and that is a fact. But we will do our very best to mitigate the problem to reduce it to manageable numbers.”
“I would like to ask the Minister what is the retention rate for the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme. For job redesign, I recall an announcement was made some time ago that NTUC, together with MOM, was looking at various sectors for job redesign. How successful has this endeavour been, and what are the hurdles that had been put up against such job redesigns, because most of what we have heard seem to be only in the cleaning industry? Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I mentioned that in the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme, about 20,000 residents benefited. The retention rate, if I were to recall from memory, was about 40% at the end of six months. We have looked at the scheme and that is why we allow it to lapse and to refocus it. It was of limited success - quite successful in getting people started. The People for Jobs Traineeship Programme was aimed mainly at the employers, and the lesson that this programme had taught us was that it really needs a multi-pronged effort aimed also at the employees for long term sustainability for them to stay on the job. There are a number of factors why mature and less skilled workers fall out. Sometimes, it is just a loss of confidence. They have to change sectors and they thought that they could not perform. Even though others want them to stay, they feel that they do not add value to the job and so they leave. Sometimes, they really find it is difficult. We have taken all the various reasons why the retentionship is not higher than we would like it to design new programmes. It is a learning curve. The second aspect about job redesign, how successful this has been and how we should extend it beyond cleaners, I agree. There are a number of sectors that we are now looking at.”
“In the recent amendment to the Land Surveyors Act, not only are surveyors required by the Act to be registered, but they now also need to fulfil certain minimum CPD requirements before they can renew their practising certificates. One would presume that this was not seen as being inconsistent with the Government's move towards less regulation of the industry. With the development of increasingly large-scale and complex developments, the proliferation of more private residential strata developments and the introduction of two-tier MCs, there is a need to maintain some minimum standards of practice among MAs to protect the interests of SPs and ensure the smooth functioning and operation of the Act. Ignorance or lack of knowledge and understanding of property maintenance and management may lead to costly oversight, pose hazards to occupiers and affect the reputation and value of the property. Whilst the Government appears adverse to legislation for MAs, I hope that it could at least give support for the accreditation scheme by, say, issuing guidelines to MCSTs, that, where possible, accredited MAs should be engaged to manage the development. The Minister would know that even non-statutory guidelines of a purely administrative nature have great persuasive authority. The professional bodies would then exercise control on their members. As Members of this House would realise, the Select Committee's report is a truly formidable document in weight and technicality of its content, and I suppose that my comments, due to time constraints, are by no means exhaustive. So, I would, in closing, urge the Ministry and BCA to keep the channels of communication open for more feedback to the implementation of this Act. With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“A common attendance at MC meeting is about 50-80; therefore, 100 SPs is a good reference point. Based on the proposed quorum requirement of 30% share value, most large condominiums would be unlikely to start their meetings. They would have to wait for half an hour to start the general meeting. Hence, the section in the original Bill with the 100 SPs or 30% of total share values should be retained. Finally, accreditation of MAs. Paragraph 69 of the Select Committee report states that the Committee disagreed with the proposal for mandatory accreditation of MAs as this would be inconsistent with the move towards less Government regulation of the industry as a whole. The Committee felt that this should be self-regulated by the professionals themselves. In fact, this is precisely why the SISV-APFM accreditation was established, ie, to provide for self-regulation. However, it must be acknowledged that standards of practice in the industry are highly disparate precisely because managing agents have never been regulated in any way before. Incidentally, the wide gulf in standards of management agents was also a point highlighted in the Sunday Times article dated 17th October 2004 with the headline "Watch who you hire to run your condo", where the case of a security guard who attempted to secure an appointment as a managing agent was quoted. In contrast, other professions, including insurance agents, are subject to legislation. Indeed, by a strange twist of events, even maid agencies are required to be accredited. But MAs, whose role and function can determine the environment most Singaporeans live in, are not.”
“There is no clause 66(1)(c) now as it has been deleted from the Bill. Further, the Select Committee agrees in paragraph 71 of its report that MCs could be permitted to appoint the MA for a term of up to three years, which would be comparable to the MAs for Town Councils. Accordingly, clause 66(2)(a) has been amended to state that the MA appointed shall hold office until the conclusion of the "third" annual general meeting instead of until the conclusion of the "next" annual general meeting. However, the Select Committee also notes that it is important that the MA's performance be reviewed annually and, hence, states that the MA's appointment should be an item on the AGM agenda to be reviewed annually. This requirement seems superfluous since, if the MC wishes to terminate the MA in accordance with the terms of appointment, say, due to poor performance, they could do so at the general meeting. There is no need to mandate that the MA's appointment should be an item for review at every AGM. Fifth, quorum for general meeting. In the original Bill, the quorum requirement for AGM and EOGM is either 100 SPs or SPs who collectively own 30% of the total share value, whichever is lower. The Select Committee now removes the 100 SPs requirement as a representor had argued that the requirement of 100 SPs at an EGM is arbitrary. Without this 100 SPs option, for large condominiums with, say 1,000 owners, the quorum required is 300. In practice, this number is not normally achieved. To make this section realistic and practicable, the quorum requirement should not make it so difficult to start a meeting. The decision making, on the other hand, could be stringent, depending on the seriousness of the subject matters discussed (based on the resolutions required).”
“However, the new requirement that a general meeting would have to be convened to elect another person to fill the vacancy would, in practice, make the resignation of any one of the three key office bearers no less difficult and costly. It would be more practical if the Act provides that a general meeting need only be convened if the office bearer or the remaining Council members are unable to find a replacement for the post, say, within a month, after a Council meeting is convened for the purpose of appointing another person to fill his vacancy. Fourth, period of appointment of the managing agent (MA). Paragraph 57 of the Select Committee's report notes that the appointment of the MA is another important decision that would affect all SPs. Therefore, the Committee agrees that the termination and re-appointment of MAs should be done via a general meeting so that every SP would be aware of the decision. The original Bill had allowed for the MA to be appointed by the council without a general meeting. Although the Select Committee now agrees that the MA should be appointed at a general meeting, clause 66(1)(b) of the amended Bill still provides that a managing agent may be appointed by the council without a general meeting if duly authorised to do so by the subsidiary proprietors at the last preceding general meeting. This is similar to clause 65(1)(b) of the original Bill and would appear to be contradictory to the current intention for the MA to be appointed at the general meeting to ensure that every SP is aware of the decision. Additionally, there is an error in clause 66(3)(b) which provides "where the managing agent is appointed under subsection (1)(b) or (c) - by the council of the management corporation without a general meeting".”
“The COB would then decide on the application of the MC for alterations, after taking into account the owners' and developers' views and interests. This should not be too onerous to the COB in any case, since it is envisaged that such situations would be rare. The justifications for reverting to the original position would be similar to the basis on which the Select Committee has now agreed to reinstating the offence provision based on feedback that it is an effective deterrent to compel SPs to pay their contributions even though the intention of the removal was to decriminalise minor offences. Third, resignation of office bearers (Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer). Clause 55 provides that, "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person appointed to the office of chairperson, secretary or treasurer of the council of a management corporation shall not resign his office until (a) a meeting of the council is first convened for the purpose of appointing another person to fill his vacancy; and (b) a general meeting is first convened for the purpose of electing another person to fill his vacancy, and any purported resignation or vacation of office in breach of this subsection shall be deemed to be invalid." This is in response to feedback that the existing provision which does not allow an office bearer to resign, unless a replacement is found, is onerous and unfair. As most people living in multi-unit strata title developments can attest, it is not easy to find well-meaning, responsible men and women with integrity, willing to serve. We should not make it any harder.”
“For instance, in a 100-unit development where only four units had been sold, a special resolution could be passed by three out of the four owners to make changes to the common property which might not be beneficial to the subsequent owners. The Select Committee has taken this into consideration and now allows developer votes to be included. However, this change, which is provided now in clause 50, would swing the scenario the other way. If developers hold at least 75% of the votes, they could presumably make alterations to the detriment of the 25% or less of the owners. Alternatively, in a more realistic scenario, they might not make any alterations to the common property which might be beneficial to the owners as a whole so as not to incur additional sums of money or deplete the management fund. Either way, the situation is unsatisfactory. The purpose of the existing Act in restricting the power of the MC, including making alterations to development during the initial period, is, in fact, to prevent a developer, who may be the majority owner during the initial period, from making decisions which could be prejudicial to the owners or potential owners of the development before the first annual general meeting. Hence, including the lots owned by the developers in the computation of the votes for making alterations to the development during the initial period would defeat the very purpose for which the existing Act, and now clause 49 of the amended Bill, sets out to prevent. Therefore, to prevent both scenarios from arising, I propose that we should keep the status quo, ie, the original or existing position before the Bill, where the approval of the Commissioner of Building has to be obtained if the MC decides to carry out any alterations.”
“However, the range of share values should preferably be kept small, otherwise it would be unfair to the first stage owners as there are implications on the early owner's share in the common property, the amount of contributions he has to pay, as well as his voting rights. The Act does not spell out any guidelines as to how share values are to be given in a range or, when fixed, how is it to be changed subsequently. I propose that the BCA work with key stakeholders to issue some guidelines as to how share values ought to be given in a range, how they are to be adjusted - say, based on a formula - arising from changes in the subsequent phases of the development, and the information that must be clearly spelt out and given to purchasers so that they are fully aware of the implications of possible future changes to the share value of their units. As the chairperson of the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers, let me state that the Institute would be more than delighted to contribute in this respect. Second, permitted alterations to common property during initial period. The Bill originally allowed subsidiary proprietors to carry out alterations during the initial period, if they pass a "special" resolution where the votes are based on at least three-quarters of the aggregate share values of the lots cast at the meeting. However, the lots owned by the developers are to be excluded from the voting. Written submissions to the Select Committee had highlighted that, if not many units were sold by the developers during the initial period, this could effectively mean that a small number of owners could pass a special resolution that might affect the entire development.”
“Moreover, the drafters of the Bill may lack the practical experience in the industry to fully comprehend the crux of the issues and problems in the maintenance and management of properties. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that many legislation are often highly technical and complex and could have unintended consequences, if not properly drafted or well thought out. I would, therefore, like to urge not only the Ministry of National Development but also other Ministries to actively engage stakeholders and solicit their feedback on proposed Bills, as long as they are not market sensitive, and allow thorough debates on the Bills before they are passed into law to improve their relevance and efficacy. There are several key issues and concerns that have arisen as a result of some of the proposed amendments which the Select Committee has adopted. I would like to comment briefly on six of these. First, changes to share value in phased developments. To allow for flexibility that would facilitate phased developments on white sites, such as the upcoming Business and Financial Centre in Marina South, the Select Committee agreed to allow share values allotted to units in a phased development to be stated with a range of variation. Allowing share value in phased developments to be changed within certain prescribed limits and declared upfront by the developer would help to enhance the viability of such large-scale and highly risky phased developments in the face of rapidly changing economic conditions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my previous incarnation, I was a real estate practitioner. Although my present work as a mayor cannot be more different, I have not lost my zest and interest in real estate matters. Speaking as such, I am pleased to note that the Select Committee has been receptive to the representations made and have incorporated many of the suggestions into the amended Bill. The readiness of the Select Committee to refine and, in some cases, even reverse proposed changes to the Bill is very commendable and certainly further evidence of the more consultative approach to policy making this Government now espouses with great vigour. Of the 27 major suggestions highlighted by the Select Committee in its Report, only seven were rejected outright, whilst the remaining 20 were either wholly or partially accepted, representing a score of 7.4 out of 10, even better than Mr Inderjit Singh's assessment of the Competition Bill. Indeed, this most recent consultative exercise and the subsequent amendments made, illustrate the importance and value of having thorough consultations on proposed changes to legislation or the introduction of new legislation, especially for something that has so wide-ranging impact on our living and working environment. This will help to ensure its effectiveness and efficacy as well as practicality in implementation. However, the extensive consultations with key stakeholders prior to the drafting of the Bill did not exhaust the flow of comments and ideas during the Select Committee stage. This is not surprising as the legislation is highly technical and complex and impinges on many stakeholders with divergent interests, as alluded to by the Minister.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether we are the only country that adopts such an accounting approach where capital receipts are excluded from our budget balances, and whether we could, by pursuing this approach, be more tightfisted than we ought to be when providing a stimulus package to help individuals and businesses during an economic downturn.”
“Sir, while the Minister has noted that there are no fixed criteria, but, as regards the income level, is there any ceiling on a per capita basis for applicants? Because as the size of medical bills increases, say, for people with critical illness, the sandwich class - people with income of $2,000 and above - may have problems footing the bills.”
“Sir, there are some genuine concerns from parents who work on Saturdays that their children may not use the Saturdays off meaningfully but instead they may get into bad company, and I think there are also genuine concerns from teachers along this line too. Would the Ministry ensure that schools could organise at least some activities from time to time for such students, or at least direct them to such meaningful activities?”
“Other areas that MCYS could consider would be to help train more home-based baby-sitters and to consider extending infant care subsidies to parents who choose home-based baby-sitters as opposed to infant care centres. Some parents may feel more comfortable entrusting their infants to a familiar neighbour or relative than a maid or an infant care centre. With these suggestions, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The demands of work and the worry that having a baby would hinder one's advancement in career are among the most oft-cited reasons for couples for delaying parenthood or having fewer children. More effort is thus needed to change employers' mindsets and develop family-friendly work practices. Such practices should not discriminate against women and should look at ways to allow for flexi-work hours, working from home and part-time work where the nature of the work can accommodate such arrangements. Employers must also be encouraged to look at performance in terms of outcomes and deliverables and not the hours worked. Many stay-at-home mothers have expressed their frustration that the baby package seems to unwittingly imply that stay-at-home mums are less appreciated, although this is not so since they do benefit from the new baby bonus scheme, for instance. They share that they will prefer to work part-time which will allow them to spend time with their children and at the same time gain some financial independence and self-fulfilment. However, part-time work is scarce as many employers are not amenable to such arrangements. Such mindsets have to be changed if we want to encourage procreation and at the same time help make it easier for women to chart their own course in motherhood. MCYS could also embark on a drive to encourage more fathers to share in parenting responsibility so that women do not feel that they would have to be the only ones to make the sacrifices and juggle multiple roles if they were to start a family that could impact on their career. Already, there are comments that the slew of measures remain women centric and do not do enough to signal the shared parenting responsibilities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, like the Employment (Amendment) Bill, the Children Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill puts into statute the recommendations of the Procreation Committee which were accepted by the Government. The Bill primarily seeks to enhance maternity benefits with the Government bearing the cost of the extended four weeks' maternity leave for the first and second child and the entire 12 weeks for the third and fourth child, subject to the maximum stipulated sums. The Government will also reimburse self-employed women for their lost income for the equivalent periods of maternity leave if they stop work for child delivery. A new provision is the reimbursement of the pay of female employees or the lost income of self-employed women who are married, widowed or divorced, who adopt children who are less than six months old, at the point of adoption, for a maximum period of 24 days. This is a good initiative and shows that MCYS is sympathetic to the plight of couples who are unable to have children of their own. As my comments regarding the extended maternity leave for up to four children are similar to those I had made earlier under the Employment (Amendment) Bill, I shall not repeat them here. However, I would like to urge MCYS, together with MOM, to intensify their efforts to convince more firms to adopt family-friendly work practices which are mutually beneficial to employers and employees. According to the Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy, presently only one in five employers allow flexi-work and only 15% offer part-time work. There is obviously a great deal more room for pro-family workplace practices.”
“Recognising this, the Government has now formed a new National Population Steering Committee under the charge of the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, to look at all aspects of the population issue and coordinate the efforts of all relevant Ministries and agencies. We will need to continually monitor and tweak the measures even as societal norms and expectations change. Sir, with this, I support the Bill.”
“Figures from the European Commission in fact show parental leave take-up rates of near zero for men, compared to over 90% for women, except for some Scandinavian countries. It appears that men do not take paternity leave, as they worry about what their colleagues think about them, as well as the fact that their employers may hold this against them. Hence, paternity leave would only serve its purpose if employers are sufficiently enlightened and ready to provide such leave, whilst fathers must indeed want to take leave to share in the parenting responsibilities and not, as I have overheard some men allude to for now, to play golf! Sir, in conclusion, I should add that the baby package is exactly that, a package. The effects, which we all hope it will produce, stem not from the individual elements - whether it is maternity leave, baby bonus, funds for companies to hire consultants to develop a work-life culture - working in isolation. Rather, all the elements are intended to function in unison to provide the web of incentives and create an environment which is more conducive to bear and rear children. As the slogan goes, we want to make Singapore the best place to live in and, may I add, now, to have children. As a nation, we take great pride in being No. 1 or a close No. 2 or 3 in many areas, eg, airport, seaport, garden city, national competitiveness. Sir, procreation is definitely not one of our strengths. Perhaps, our dismal performance in this area is ironically a result of our scintillating performance in so many other areas of national life. I humbly submit, therefore, that the package of measures remains a work-in-progress.”
“Those who are in this category, especially the lower middle white collar female workers, worry that they may not be accorded similar leave and other benefits as the rank and file employees, and that they may be discriminated against with no recourse from legislation. Again, the National Tripartite Advisory Panel, mindful of such concerns, has, in its guidelines for pro-family workplace practices, advocated the equitable application of employment practices and benefits to all categories of workers, including staff who are not covered under the Employment Act. While anecdotal evidence suggests that most companies adopt such a practice to maintain consistency, there could be some bad apples. As MOM is principally in charge of labour and industrial relations, I would like to urge the Ministry to vigilantly monitor such situations and advise employers against adopting a short-term view in their HR policies. Finally, paternity leave. Some Singaporeans have also expressed disappointment that paternity leave has not been included in the package of procreation measures announced. This, in my opinion, is an issue which warrants review in the future. If indeed fathers are bearing equal or significant responsibilities in child-rearing, then a rethink of this policy is warranted. The two-day childcare leave per year which the father can now take is a step towards encouraging and allowing fathers to bear equal parenting responsibilities. For now, this seems sufficient, as statistics from even the most liberal western countries indicate that most men do not take paternity leave. In Britain, according to official statistics, only one in five working fathers exercised his entitlement to two weeks of paid paternity leave which was instituted in 2003.”
“To some, two days of such leave per year per parent do not seem to be much, and one can argue that nursing a sick child, accompanying one to his or her harrowing first day in school, attending graduation concerts or term-end parent-teacher meetings all add up to more than two days. But one must concede that such paid childcare leave imposes a cost on the company's bottom line, and it is once again a question of balance that needs to be achieved. Moreover, one should view this statutory childcare leave as a minimum which sets the tone for more companies to adopt pro-family workplace practices. This does not preclude employers from giving more than the mandatory two-day childcare leave per year, which is already being practised by some MNCs. One can also complain why the Bill cuts off the age of the child for which such childcare leave applies to seven years. Why not 12, as some have argued? In fact, a mother at a dialogue session even said that childcare leave should be given to those with teenage children, as such adolescents could need even more attention. There is no magic number. Again, it is a reflection of the balance the Committee has sought to achieve between the demands of the employer and the family. Thirdly, employees not covered by the Employment Act. Concerns have also been raised regarding women in middle management positions who are not covered by the Employment Act although they would be covered by their maternity benefits under the Children Development Co-Savings Act which is under the ambit of the MCYS.”
“The National Tripartite Advisory Panel's recently-issued set of Guidelines on Family Friendly Workplace Practices advocates non-discriminatory practices against female employees who are pregnant and employees with young children. This is a commendable positive first step. However, I would like to urge the Ministry to do its utmost through various measures, such as acknowledging and rewarding pro-family employers and strongly penalising errant ones, to help prevent discriminatory practices. Sir, I have also heard some comments that, even taken as a whole, 12 weeks or three months of paid maternity leave do not constitute sufficient incentive for couples to have more babies, and that the physical demands of caring for and taking time to bond with a newborn warrant longer maternity leave. That may well be so, but policy making is always about trade-offs. Speaking as a member of the Procreation Committee and having weighed the scales as deliberately and carefully as we possibly can, I must conclude that the needs of employers should not be forgotten. Even progressive, enlightened, pro-family companies need to deal with very practical issues of managing workload during periods when one or more staff may be on maternity leave. The bias against women employees that some employers may have is unfortunate and not something this House should condone, but the commercial demands of the marketplace are imposing and cannot be ignored. We should therefore avoid making it even harder for companies by extending the maternity leave any longer than is helpful. Secondly, child-care leave. The second innovation, ie, parental childcare leave, is totally new. It is common practice in some countries in the west and, though arguably belated, it is a welcome addition.”
“This arrangement could help mitigate the employer's worries about work disruption and impact on cost and productivity due to the extended maternity leave. At the same time, it could alleviate some of the employee's worries about being unable to keep up with developments at work due to her prolonged absence and/or potential discrimination arising from the longer maternity leave. For, indeed, whilst many women agree that extra maternity leave beyond eight weeks is handy and helpful, there are also others who hesitate to support the extension, as they genuinely fear increased discrimination in the job market against female employees. At our dialogue sessions with various women groups, the issue of discrimination, particularly against pregnant women, consistently gets aired. In almost every session, someone would bring up a case of discrimination against pregnant women that she knows of. In one instance, the participant who is a professional said that she herself lost her job after she became pregnant and felt that she was a victim of discrimination. This fear of discrimination prompted another lady participant in her late forties to remark that one positive outcome for older women, who would not benefit from most of the new baby measures, would be the increased attractiveness of hiring them - botox, liposuction or otherwise - since they are unlikely to go on long maternity leave. Sir, on a more serious note, whilst the number of cases of discrimination against pregnant women at the workplace may not be large, these practices should not be condoned.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me preface my remarks by putting on record that I am speaking today as a member of the Steering Group on Population responsible for the recently announced package of parenthood measures. It is not my intention to query the Committee on its recommendations, as is implied in today's Straits Times, where I have been unwittingly misquoted. Doing so would clearly be odd, since this would be tantamount to questioning myself, as I too played a part in coming out with the measures. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill puts into statute what the Procreation Committee has recommended and the Government has accepted. The Bill focuses on two aspects of these incentives, ie, extension of paid maternity leave, and introduction of paid childcare leave. Sir, by most accounts, the new baby package has been well received. Many Singaporeans strongly support the measures. This was also the feedback the women MPs have received thus far from our dialogue sessions with various women groups. And, indeed, this should be no surprise, because the package was developed only after extensive consultations from a broad spectrum of Singapore society. However, some concerns have been raised which may warrant further review and action. I would like to highlight these under two of the key amendments covered in this Bill as well as raise two other issues. Firstly, extension of maternity leave to 12 weeks and up to the fourth child. Besides extending paid maternity leave to 12 weeks up to the fourth child, the Bill provides some flexibility to not only the female employee but also her employer by allowing the employee the option of taking the last 4-week block of post-natal leave any time within six months of the birth, as long as her employer is agreeable.”
“At the university, there is very little teaching, as students who attend universities have gone through basic education, are older and assumed to be more matured and independent to do their own research. However, the level of maturity and independence of the high school students and thus their need for guidance and teaching would be vastly different, even if they are highly gifted in some areas. Sir, I do not dispute that having more specialised schools to cater to the different talents and needs of our students would greatly enrich the education landscape. Moreover, it is also undeniable that the NUS High School could benefit from tapping on the university's resources. Nonetheless, I am concerned with the appropriateness and effectiveness of allowing NUS to establish the High School for Mathematics and Science as, among others, this is clearly a departure from its core business. Sir, I would urge the Ministry and the NUS to study the concerns raised and take steps to mitigate these issues. With these caveats, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to explain how NUS plans to staff its High School. How many of its academic staff would it be deploying to the school, either on a part-time or full-time basis? How would this impact the university's staff strength and resources and teaching programmes? Would the university, which is still striving to establish itself as a top research university, not be stretching its resources too thinly and diluting its attention and effort by venturing into what conventional wisdom would certainly view as a non-core business, ie, running a high school? Secondly, the university is already in the midst of implementing numerous changes. Sir, resulting from the last review of the universities' admissions system and curriculum, it would seem that the universities, including the NUS, are still in the midst of implementing the recommendations made, including how students are assessed for admissions, what courses to offer and the curriculum of different courses to make them more broad-based. Moreover, the universities are likely to be also involved in the current review of university fees and subsidies. Given all these on-going changes, would not the setting up of a high school by the NUS at this point in time be a diversion of its attention away from the more pressing and important tasks required of its primary calling? Thirdly, the relevance of the teaching capabilities and experience of NUS lecturers. Moreover, unlike mainstream primary and secondary school and junior college teachers, NUS lecturers would generally not have undergone formal training to become teachers. Would the Minister not agree that university lecturers may not be properly equipped to teach secondary school and junior college students?”
“However, I am tempted to ask if indeed the reasons for NUS to establish a specialised high school in mathematics and science which necessitates an amendment to its Act, the building of a brand new school costing some $28 million and staff deployment are sufficiently compelling. Undoubtedly, giving those who are talented and passionate in mathematics and science an opportunity to develop their talents to the fullest and as early as possible is highly desirable. The ability of the new NUS High School to leverage on the comprehensive range of expertise available at the university to nurture and educate these students is also a positive factor. Nonetheless, I would like to raise three concerns which I hope the Minister can clarify. Firstly, deviation from core business. The NUS had said previously that one of its primary motivations for mooting this idea is that it is tired of less than inquisitive students passing through its doors and thought that it might be able to do better than mainstream secondary schools at producing students who are better prepared for higher education. Instead of pouring an inordinate amount of resources, building a new school and having to deploy staff to the school, as an experiment to find out if it can do better at producing independent, thinking and inquisitive students, would it not be better for the NUS to share its ideas with mainstream schools, say, starting with the schools offering through-train programmes? After all, Bronx Science, from which the initiative for this school might have germinated, is also not directly part of a tertiary institution. NUS could, if it desires, tie up with selected mainstream schools and allow the school to tap on its staff expertise and facilities to nurture students talented in mathematics and science.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whilst this Bill is titled the Universities (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, I certainly do not think that the amendments proposed are "miscellaneous" in nature, especially the amendment to be made to the NUS Act which allows the university to establish institutions that provide education at above primary levels, and not just solely at the university level. Sir, this proposed amendment changes our understanding of the fundamental mission and objects of universities as citadels of higher learning, rather than as institutions providing basic education which spans the primary to secondary levels. This amendment has been made to facilitate the setting up of the NUS High School hailed as the first of its kind in Singapore. According to Minister of State for Education, Mr Chan Soo Sen, the NUS High School is tasked with the special responsibility of providing a stimulating environment for students with exceptional aptitude and interest in mathematics and science. I understand that the High School is fashioned somewhat like the famous Bronx High School of Science, which is a public high school located in New York City. This school was founded in 1938 and counts five Nobel laureates among its graduates, the most for any secondary school in the world. Sir, I applaud and strongly support the Education Ministry's recent moves to offer a wider range of options to our students and allow them to develop their talents and passion in specialised schools, such as in the Sports School or the Arts School.”
“But all these are approaches where the horse would have bolted from the stable, and the problem can then arise that can cause problems to sub-purchasers who are really members of the public. So, rather than do that, make the developer, who is a business entity here, responsible for rectifying the encroachment. The surveyor is, in a sense, the point man, because he is a professional doing the survey on the ground. He is the one who will discover the encroachment and, in practice, he will tell his employer, in this case, the developer, about it, and then the process should be resolved because, failing which, the survey plans would not be approved. So, let us work out this approach and see how it goes. As Dr Khor has mentioned, SISV is in close touch with the Chief Surveyor. In fact, there is a very good working relationship. There will be continuing dialogue, and I am sure we can monitor the system so that, should problems arise, we can adjust this process in due course. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. HIRE-PURCHASE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 pm”
“So, rather than do that, arising from the experience of this case that we had, the approach is to try to address the problem at source, ie, when the surveyor submits his survey plans to the Chief Surveyor, the onus is now on him. I think Dr Khor would agree that a surveyor who does his job would know what is on the ground, because encroachments cannot be hidden. It can be a retaining wall, an overhanging balcony or eave or a pillar to an entrance, and he will notice that. So, it is better for him when he does that - and that is what will happen in practice - to let the developer know, because the developer has engaged him for the job. So, really, the pressure point is not on him as such, but on the developer, because in order for the developer to sell the units, he has to take out Certificates of Title and, to do that, he has to submit approved survey plans. The onus is therefore on the developer to rectify the encroachment. He can do that in one of three ways. He can, for example, remove the encroachment, if it can be easily removed; or he can apply for a Temporary Occupation Licence from SLA; or buy over the encroached land from the State or, if the adjoining land is private land, then buy it over from its owner. Once the encroachment is resolved in this way, it is clear cut. Any sub-purchaser who buys from him will know that there is no encroachment which can trouble him later on. We have thought over the alternative approaches very carefully. For example, notice of encroachment is one; giving approval for the survey plan, then getting SLA to enforce against the developer later on is another.”
“The Chief Surveyor will monitor the academic qualifications of the assistant surveyors doing the survey and the standard will not drop below the current standard. For good measure, indeed, the Chief Surveyor will publish these minimum qualifications in a Directive on Cadastral Survey that he would be publishing. I think this is the first point, ie, the work of the assistant surveyors is important. With this amendment, the work would still be properly done. Sir, the second point is why there is an amendment to empower the Chief Surveyor not to grant approval of the survey plan if there is an encroachment that has been created as a result of new boundaries created by a development for which a survey plan has been submitted. As Dr Khor rightly pointed out, this amendment has been made in the light of a recent case where unwittingly some purchasers had bought units in a condominium and, unfortunately, because the developer had gone insolvent and, in fact, even though the developer knew about the encroachment, because the survey plans were approved, they could take out Certificates of Title and therefore they could issue titles to the sub-purchasers. And so under the law, SLA in fact went against the sub-purchasers to pay for the land upon which the encroachment, in this case, a retaining wall, was built. Hence, the approach therefore is that, in the public interest, it is better really to resolve these encroachments upfront rather than, for example, the suggestion by Dr Khor is to give notice of encroachment to sub-purchasers, and if sub-purchasers buy with notice of encroachment, they will take it with notice. But then you do not resolve the problem upfront. The question of the parties' rights can surface later on and can sometimes result in litigation.”
“Her first point is that, with the doing away with the registration of assistant surveyors, that may lead to a drop in standards. Sir, I think Dr Khor's point can be met with two checks that are in place. Sir, the first check is, as Dr Khor quite rightly points out, that the registered surveyor under the Land Surveyors Act remains primarily responsible to the Chief Surveyor. As a professional, he is accountable for what he does. So following the practice of allied professionals like the architects and engineers, where their assistants are not required to be registered, the amendment is now made to also do away with the registration of assistant surveyors. Because, essentially, the assistant surveyors work under the guidance, direction and supervision of the registered surveyors. So that is the first key point. It is ultimately the professional responsibility of the registered surveyors, whom I am sure will be as concerned as anybody else, to engage assistant surveyors who are adequately trained and who will do the job, especially in terms of field work. The second point is that these assistant surveyors do survey work on the ground. Before they do that, in fact, their qualifications will be monitored, and this point is something that we would assure Dr Khor. Before they can do that, their names will be submitted by the registered surveyors so that the Chief Surveyor can issue them authority cards. And, in fact, a SOP has been in place to ensure that the entry of land is properly done with notification and authority cards. So at that point in time, the Chief Surveyor's Office will look at the qualifications. That is the assurance that the Chief Surveyor has given me, because I am as concerned as her, that standards should not drop.”
“If a development has been completed on land with encroachment, completion of sales for all subdivided units will be delayed if the Chief Surveyor does not approve the certified plan, even though the encroachment may only affect one of the subdivided lots and not all the subdivided lots in the development. Purchasers of units on the subdivided lots could be inconvenienced. More importantly, they face the prospect of incurring extra costs as a result of the delay in completion of the sale and purchase. The developer could also face legal action by all purchasers of the development for the delay in completion of the sale and purchase. Sir, for such complex encroachment issues, which cannot be quickly and easily resolved, the Act could allow the certified plan to be approved and the encroachment registered with the land registry. In this way, purchasers whose subdivided lots are not affected by the encroachment can complete their sales, leaving only the affected purchaser and/or the authorities and the developer to resolve the encroachment issues. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to urge the Minister to look into these two areas of concern arising from the proposed amendments which I have highlighted and make provisions to overcome the possible negative repercussions, if not in the Act itself, then at least in the Cadastral Survey Directive issued by the Chief Surveyor from time to time. With these suggestions, I support the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Amy Khor for supporting the Bill. Indeed, as she says, the Bill will introduce processes that will improve and streamline the surveying profession, both its regulation as well as the processes of surveying. Sir, let me address Dr Khor's two points.”
“Sir, it would be relatively easy to resolve new encroachments of, for example, a developer building a boundary wall which encroaches onto an adjoining piece of land. This is because the party responsible for the encroachment is easily identifiable. In such instances, the developer responsible for the encroachment under common law would have to tear down and rebuild the boundary wall. However, if the encroachment is due to an existing structure, such as a retaining wall or boundary wall which was built even before the new developer or owner came onto the scene, determining the party or parties responsible for such encroachment could be cumbersome. Investigations would have to be made to determine if construction was done jointly with the existing or previous neighbours or was previously required by the authorities. Furthermore, complications can arise. In the case of a non-structural boundary wall, which was built long ago, at a time when building plan submissions for the erection were not required, there could be no record of encroachment in the land registry. In such instances, only the courts can determine with finality who created the encroachment and how it can be resolved. Resolving such encroachment issues would be beyond the scope and responsibility of the registered surveyor. The registered surveyor's professional duty would be only to determine if there is an encroachment and to highlight such encroachments to the developer and the authorities. It would be grossly unfair to place the onus of resolving such encroachment issues on the registered surveyor, which the proposed new subsection seems to do.”
“My second point relates to the repeal of Part IX which relates to conduct of cadastral survey. The Bill states that Part IX of the present Act is to be repealed and re-enacted with minor amendments in the Boundaries and Survey Maps Act. Under its present form, section 39(3) of the Act provides for two circumstances under which the Chief Surveyor may withhold approval of any plan, as has been reiterated by the Minister. These are (1) if the subdivision permission, as required under the Planning Act, has not been obtained, or (2) when the survey fee payable has not been paid. Section 39(3) is to appear as section 11D(3) in the Boundaries and Survey Maps Act. The two circumstances are now spelt out under sections 11D(3)(a) and (3)(b). In addition to these two circumstances, there is now a new circumstance stipulated under which the Chief Surveyor may withhold approval. This is section 11D(3)(c) which states that approval may be withheld if the registered surveyor has not certified that any encroachment created by the purchaser or owner of a parcel of land being surveyed has been resolved. This new provision appears to have been included due to the recent encroachment issues highlighted by that of Escada View, a housing development built by the bankrupt Grandlink Group. Sir, the new provision would seem to imply that the Chief Surveyor may withhold approval for any encroachment which has not been resolved, regardless of whether it is a new encroachment or one arising from an existing structure. Furthermore, this section seems to place the onus of resolving the encroachment issue on the registered surveyor since approval may be withheld if the registered surveyor has not certified that the encroachment has been resolved.”