Christopher de Souza
Singapore
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. My supplementary question arises out of our deployment of our Multi-Role Tankers Transport. I think our airmen and soldiers, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and MINDEF should be commended. It was a complex high-altitude mission, and it was successful.”
“Much obliged, Sir. My supplementary questions draw from the fact that the situation displays: one, how Singapore has agency; and two, how Singapore can use the situation as a catalyst.”
“It cannot be allowed to be the master. It does not moralise. Thus, as we embrace AI, we must do so with discernment. We should use it to the extent that it facilitates decision-making, but it cannot be allowed to usurp our decision-making. Innovation cannot come at the expense of trespassing on some existing IP rights.”
“In relation to the study on the drug trafficking and the death penalty. In fact, in response to that, I think there is a very good statistic that we should elaborate on in this House and also out there in education that 15 grams of diamorphine feeds 180 drug abuses for one week.”
“The Singapore Land Authority plays an important role in unlocking the value of state land for community use. As a sportsman, I have personally seen with immense joy how underutilised spaces, such as areas under flyovers, can be transformed into safe and vibrant places for sport and recreation, whether for pickleball, futsal, badminton, te…”
“To propel our status as a hub, Singapore will need infrastructure, such as exhibition facilities, to showcase mediation capabilities, breakout rooms, bilateral mediation hearing rooms as well as printers, laptops and screens for settlement agreements to be typed out.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,264 lines we hold for Christopher de Souza, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 26.
“Sir, we have an exceptional anti-narcotics force in the form of CNB. CNB officers, working with the wider Home Team, risk life and limb to deter the trafficking and consumption of drugs in Singapore. It is only right that anti-drug laws are amended and updated to give the team of officers the needed powers and tools to deter and fight against pro-drug activity in Singapore. Therefore, significant amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act being debated today are timely, useful and relevant. Compared to many jurisdictions around the world, it can be said that Singapore does have the upper hand in the fight against drugs. But there is no reason why we should not continue making that upper hand more robust and stronger. We can do this by training our focus and resources on the threats at hand. In 2017, four out of 10 total drug abusers were below 30 years old. Also, 40% of total drug abusers were new drug abusers. Of those, about two-thirds were below the age of 30. These are the kinds of proportions we have been looking at year on year since 2015. As the use of drugs leaves an indelible mark on the life of a person, the proportion of new drug abusers is particularly concerning. What is also of concern is the increasing number of youths who take on a drug-tolerant attitude towards drugs. According to the National Council Against Drug Abuse’s Youth and Public Perception Survey, the proportion of youths aged 16 to 21 who agreed with statements, such as "I do not mind trying drugs when I am overseas" and "I would try taking drugs if it was not illegal" rose from 11% in 2013 to 16% in 2016.”
“I thank both Ministers for their thorough Statements. Recommendation 4 of the COI states "enhanced security checks must be performed, especially on CII systems." My question is, what is the accountability mechanism for this? Essentially, who will regulate cybersecurity officers to ensure such checks are up to a professional standard and performed regularly? Further, what is the professional standard we are pegging the expectation to and how regularly will security checks be undertaken?”
“Sir, Singaporeans consider the recent act by the Johor Chief Minister as an affront towards Singapore's sovereign rights. Ultimately, we have to look at these emotive issues through cold, calculative lenses by taking deliberate steps to advance Singapore's interests, and our resolve to take such steps should not be underestimated. One solution is third party arbitration. Of course, there are other routes. My question for the Minister is: what positive actions and active steps can Singaporeans do to protect and preserve our sovereign rights?”
“I thank the Minister for his response and I take it to heart that there are some men and women in marriage who find it difficult to conceive. But to resort to commercial surrogacy where you are paying for a womb overseas, renting a womb, does bring about ethical concerns. And there is always the option in Singapore for a married man and woman to explore adoption. So, there is an adoption of another child. So, there is a route to create a family unit with children. Would the Minister consider that as a route?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Commercial surrogacy, in my view, where a woman's womb is rented for money, is demeaning to the child and to the woman. It commodifies the life of a baby. Life is formed for a commercial price, then bought and sold. This is exploitative. My supplementary questions are: would the Minister agree, for these reasons, that commercial surrogacy should be prohibited? Further, it can be argued that a substantial amount of commercial surrogacy is undertaken by women who are poverty-stricken and it is, therefore, exploitative of them. So, my second question is, for those additional reasons, does the Minister agree that commercial surrogacy should be barred? Thirdly, to make these principles even clearer, could the Minister consider amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act, the Penal Code and the Adoption Act? And I am very willing to work with MSF, as a Member of Parliament, to make the necessary amendments in the law to reflect those principles.”
“Having been instilled with a duty to save lives, SCDF NSmen will be able to formally and regularly advance the mission of saving lives through better powers and a more robust legal framework for the environment within which they operate. Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“As the Minister alluded to in her speech earlier, this is a useful and pragmatic improvement as it would allow for a prompter and more accurate diagnosis as medical history may reveal important information, such as possible complications and known allergies. In this way, the value of a person’s life necessitates that the practical impossibility of obtaining consent from an unconscious person will not bar more targeted help from being rendered to save the person’s life. SCDF officers will thus be able to render medical assistance more effectively and efficiently. Singaporeans will benefit. The third feature of the Bill is that it prevents impersonation and unauthorised use of the insignias of the SCDF, Immigration and Prisons officers. This prohibition supports the officers’ work by ensuring that the trust that the public has in the Services is not misused by an impersonator. Immigration Officers keep our borders safe; Prison Officers follow through in implementing incarceration sentences and, where necessary, rehabilitation; SCDF Officers command evacuations, douse fires and save lives. Impersonators should not be allowed to dilute their cause or effectiveness or the trust instilled in our officers. Indeed, trust has been hard earned. The public perception survey of 2016 showed that “the overall public confidence with SCDF being capable to cope with emergencies reached a high at 99%”. Well done, to our SCDF and Home Team officers! Sir, this Bill gives SCDF NSmen the opportunity to continue serving the nation in this unique capacity, using the skills, training and experience they have built up and honed over the years.”
“In recognition that life-saving work is important and a core part of what SCDF does, this Bill provides a statutory basis for the powers that need to be exercised in day-to-day operations – to save lives, for example, by breaking open a door. There are two additional powers provided by the Bill. The first is clause 20 which involves access to install and maintain emergency devices which act as a public warning device or to monitor or detect a civil defence emergency. Clause 20, in particular, prevents the acts of an individual from compromising the safety of many through refusing to cooperate in the installation or maintenance of the device or even tampering with it. This is important. Why? Because having a functional and effective PWS is critical for a strong, robust emergency response. In Palu, Indonesia, the earthquake destroyed the mobile phone network infrastructure, which made it impossible to use that mode of communication to disseminate information. Having a warning system in place can make the difference between the life and death of many, but only if it is understood, only if vigilance is exercised in detecting the situation and sounding the alert. As such, would the Minister elaborate on how our systems have been updated and upgraded to detect emergencies, possibly taking in newer warning signs? Would the Minister also elaborate how the community is engaged in emergency detection and preparedness? A further additional power is the ability to take biometric identification factors to identify an unconscious person or one who is unable to communicate for medical intervention.”
“Sir, SCDF plays an important role in Singapore's Total Defence. This Bill plays an important role in enhancing the support SCDF and other HTDs need in their dedicated service to Singapore. The first main feature of this Bill is that it strengthens HR capacity by allowing SCDF NSmen to voluntarily extend their service beyond what is required. Similar possibilities exist through the NS volunteer scheme and the Voluntary Extension of Service for Police NSmen Scheme, in the SAF and Singapore Police Force (SPF). This will help advance SCDF's 2025 Vision of building a "Nation of Lifesavers". Being prepared to save lives would allow for prompter responses to life-threatening incidents and a more robust and resilient response in the event of a national crisis. Would the Minister elaborate on the rationale of the vision and the initiatives that SCDF has undertaken towards partnering the community to collectively work towards that vision? The second major feature of this Bill is supporting day-to-day operations of the officers. The Bill expands the scope of the SCDF's functions to go beyond firefighting so as to provide statutory-based powers needed for their day-to-day life-saving duties which do not involve fighting fires. Historically, these duties were performed separately by SCDF and the Singapore Fire Service. However, in 1989, they merged to form Singapore Joint Civil Defence Forces and soon after became known as SCDF. The SCDF's twin objectives of fighting fires and saving lives can be seen in the Fire Medical Vehicle commissioned in 2017. This vehicle is a hybrid between the Red Rhino and an ambulance, supporting both objectives of firefighting and saving lives.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think the last group of people are the people who need this the most. And if special consideration, in the discretion of the Ministry, could be applied to those who are actually suffering from severe disabilities now, and have used up the six years of ElderShield and, therefore, need a leg up. Would that be considered, please?”
“For instance, clause 5 changes the maximum penalty for an individual from a fine of $20,000 to a maximum penalty of a fine of $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to three years. I agree with the enhancements. Why? Because these financial crimes are calculated crimes based on the lucrativeness and perceived benefit of committing a crime. They can be committed across jurisdictions. Therefore, it is imperative that Singapore plays its part by deploying tough laws to deter money laundering and financing of terrorism. As such, would the Minister share with us how the proposed punishment tariffs compare with other jurisdictions and how the punishment tariffs in this Bill were calculated? I believe the Minister talked about how the punishment tariffs were calculated in the Bill. I am asking how they compare with the other jurisdictions. Sir, in conclusion, this Bill strengthens our response to transnational financial crimes involving money laundering and terrorism financing. It is timely and needed. Therefore, I support it.”
“Therefore, terrorism financing has to be stopped and its streams of support dried up. To that end, Singapore is party to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. TSOFA implements this international agreement and, today, this Bill goes further in our commitment by implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 2178 through clause 18. Clause 18 expands the scope of the offence to include financing someone to travel to another country to be trained or to train others to commit a terrorist attack. Clause 21 goes one step further and makes it an offence to abet, attempt or conspire to commit those terrorism financing offences. Because people would not be convicted of a crime without fulfilling both the mental element and physical action of the offence, there may be instances where although they were unaware, acts of terrorism are still being financially supported. As such, may I ask the Minister: what is being done to raise awareness on what are some "red flags" to look out for, such that monies donated or provided do not unwittingly fund terrorism? Besides expanding the scope of offences, this Bill also makes enforcement and investigation easier under CDSA, an Act that the Minister alluded to in her speech. How? By facilitating the sharing of information internationally and by making it easier to prove that something is a foreign serious offence or foreign drug offence. This is holistic and should be welcomed. After all, knowledge and information are key assets in winning wars against terror as well as its financing. The third way in which this Bill strengthens our response to transnational financial crimes is by enhancing penalties. Firstly, the maximum punishment has increased substantively.”
“Sir, this Bill strengthens our response to transnational financial crimes involving money laundering and terrorism financing by expanding the scope of offences, making enforcement and investigation easier, and enhancing the offences' penalties. The Bill is also timely. Why? Because the present and rapid advancement of technology has facilitated the exchanging of cash for virtual currency and vice versa. Technology has also enabled transactions and transfers to be done from almost anywhere. For example, someone who does not have an e-payment app could easily ask someone else to help them pay another person in exchange for the money in cash. This would not normally be a problem unless the cash actually came, for instance, from dealing in drugs or other illicit activities. To make matters worse, there could be a cross-border element to the crime. This Bill expands the scope of the offences pertaining to money laundering and provides a more comprehensive approach to tackling the issue. In particular, clause 4 expands the definition of capital market products, no longer requiring the product to be linked to Singapore. This allows a charging order to be made against more assets. Additionally, clause 11 of the Bill creates a new offence for a person to possess or use any property that may be reasonably suspected of being or representing any benefits of drug dealing or benefits from criminal conduct, if the person fails to account satisfactorily how the person came by that property. These enhancements are to be welcomed. The other crime that this Bill strengthens our stance against is the financing of terrorism. Financing of terrorism adds fuel to fire. It adds financial support to aid the committing of heinous acts.”
“In strengthening access to justice, this Bill also advances the rule of law in Singapore. Therefore, I support it.”
“Is the aim to help those with around the same needs profile as those under the strict means test even though the need may arise from different circumstances? This Bill also enables LAB to better manage their resources. Under clause 3, the Director may appoint someone who is not a qualified person under the Legal Profession Act to appear and plead in Court for an aided person. Would the Minister elaborate on the rigorous training that these public officers will undergo so that LAB will continue to be known for its high-quality legal services and so LAB’s clients' interests can continue to be effectively represented? Notwithstanding the ability to appoint public officers to represent clients, Assigned Solicitors continue to play an important role in the LAB's work. For instance, they still seem necessary for specialised cases involving medical negligence, Syariah Court cases, or where both parties applied for legal aid. Under clause 4, Assigned Solicitors serve for terms of approximately three years. The scope of legal assistance is expanded under clause 10 where other relevant Court documents, besides judge’s notes of evidence, may be provided without fees. This is a welcome move, especially because other Court documents may be necessary in the civil process. For example, the record of proceedings in a notice of appeal includes a certified copy of the grounds of judgment or order, if any, and a copy of the certified transcript of the official record of the hearing. In conclusion, Sir, this Bill strengthens access to justice in Singapore by enabling better management of resources, expanding the scope of assistance, and making the application process more straightforward and less rigid.”
“Through this Bill, LAB will be even more effective in its mission of advancing access to justice and the rule of law. I should also state that many members of the Singapore Bar already provide hours upon hours of pro bono services to clients who cannot afford legal fees. So, these amendments in this Bill should be viewed as complementing the already selfless effort of many members of the litigation Bar. Coming back to the Bill, clauses 7 and 21 remove the current means test in the Second Schedule of the current Act. Currently, the merit test comprises the disposable income test and disposable capital test. The amendment allows the means test to be brought in line with what is currently used among other agencies and welfare services. This simplifies the process and makes it easier for applicants who need various forms of help to use the same supporting documents to apply for the different kinds of help. Related to this, would the Senior Minister of State elaborate on how the qualifying limit will be set? On a related note, there is an increased discretion for the Minister to direct the Director to accept deserving cases should the applicant not meet the rigid means test. The broadened discretion expands the discretion beyond just loss of income or loss of earning capacity, to, for instance, a person who cannot afford legal services because he needs to pay for major medical procedures due to a serious illness. As difficulties in life that may reduce one's ability to afford legal assistance are very varied, it is good that there is greater discretion. Would the Minister elaborate on how this discretion is to be exercised?”
“Sir, this Bill strengthens access to justice in Singapore. Often times, a person may feel daunted by the prospect of needing to navigate the legal process on one’s own. Some knowledge of the law may be needed to make legal arguments in Court. Some may not be able to afford Court fees, let alone hire legal assistance, aid or representation. For justice to be administered, the best institutional and legal infrastructure is necessary but insufficient; access to them is also important. At this juncture, I should declare that I am a lawyer in private practice. Access to justice is important, not just for justice between relevant parties, but is also critical for society, a rule of law society, a society where people obey the law and are guided by the law. As an example, if an employer knew that he or she can get away with not paying the employee's wages agreed upon in the contract because the employee is unable to bring a claim against him or her, it would be much easier for an employer to unlawfully withhold wages. But this would not be the case if the employer knew the employee has access to justice. Therefore, by knowing that there is a possibility that the Court system may be utilised to enforce the claim, there will be greater incentive to obey the law. In this way, access to justice promotes the rule of law, even before something goes wrong. Furthermore, in certain circumstances, when something goes wrong, access to justice is important for people to not feel that they need to take things into their own hands by resorting to violence, for instance. A tangible example of this is personal protection orders, one of the many things that LAB helps its clients with.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister and his Ministry for helping to achieve a successful year with Singapore as ASEAN Chair. Building a rules-based region and bringing our economies closer are key and relevant initiatives. I would like to ask a supplementary question on the humanitarian aspect. May I ask the Minister what is the Ministry's view on the repatriation of the Rohingyas that has been announced to commence in mid-November 2018 and whether, from the point of view of ASEAN, enough has been done to ensure that those who return will not face the same threats to their safety as when they first left.”
“” Previously, the rationale as embedded and enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Open Net Pte Ltd vs the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore is as follows: "The purpose underlying the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA) regarding the right to appeal is that an appeal to the Court of Appeal will generally be as of right for orders made at interlocutory applications which have the effect of finally disposing of the substantive rights of the parties; while an appeal to the Court of Appeal will ordinarily be denied for orders made at interlocutory applications which do not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties, and which are deemed to involve established principles of law. The middle category which consists of orders made at interlocutory applications which lie in the middle of these two extreme situations may be appealed to the Court of Appeal only with leave of Court." In light of this, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the rationale behind the categorisations has changed. Sir, new times may call for new methods but not necessarily new principles. The amendments in this Bill are important as they provide the flexibility and tools for the administration of justice to adapt with the times, not to dilute the administration of justice but to ensure the processes remain efficient and effective. I believe, on the whole, the Bill does that, and therefore, I support it.”
“The appeals process, according to Prof Pinsler in Principles of Civil Procedure, “ensures the integrity and correctness of judicial decision-making, preserves the certainty of the law through judicial precedent, develops jurisprudence and maintains public confidence in the administration of justice.” Therefore, the appellate function of the Court of Appeal is very important, and the amendments in this Bill must strengthen rather than reduce the Court of Appeal's ability to discharge its appellate function in an effective manner. Clause 9 restricts new evidence that may be tendered on appeal. It requires all new evidence regarding things that happened before the trial to pass the stringent special grounds test. In particular, the distinction between interlocutory appeals and judgments is removed and seems to restrict the judge’s discretion to admit additional evidence. Therefore, would the good Senior Minister of State explain the rationale behind such an amendment? According to clause 6, the Court of Appeal may decide an appeal from the SICC without an oral hearing only upon the consent of every party. Would the Senior Minister of State kindly elaborate on the rationale behind this? Lastly, the Fourth and Fifth Schedules introduce more flexibility into what cases are non-appealable and appealable only with the leave of Court. The press release states that this amendment is to “allow the list of matters specified in the Schedule to be amended quickly to adapt to demands on the ground.”
“This is to restrain a vexatious litigant from bringing spurious claims or applications that might clog the judicial process and hinder the effective administration of justice. While better calibration is a good objective, would there be more disputes over the fine distinctions each order in the regime requires? For instance, the distinction between general and limited civil restraint order is that the general restraint order is limited to when the limited restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate. Another question I have is whether it was intended to set out a new and different test of “totally without merit”? The original test of “without any reasonable ground” has been retained in section 74. If so, would the Senior Minister of State elaborate on the difference between, if any, and the objectives of the two tests? The second area is development on the number of judges to constitute a coram under certain circumstances. This is provided through clause 4 and the new Sixth Schedule in clause 18. For instance, a single judge is necessary for a consent judgment, a judgment which the parties have agreed on. As this list is being placed into a Schedule, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what are some considerations that may be taken into account when this Schedule is amended, for example, what kind of trends, if any, will be considered and what factors will go into the decision regarding what level of judicial involvement, or what amount of judicial resources, are required? The third area, Sir, is on appeals.”
“Sir, the judiciary is an important institution. It helps to uphold the rule of law and plays an important part in the administration of justice. Its importance and function in society do not diminish over time. But how it operates may need to adapt with the times. For example, technology has been utilised by the Court to more efficiently and effectively manage cases. Launched in 2013, the eLitigation system gave a better overview of the case compared to the previous Electronic Filing System, which was more document-centric. In the same vein, clauses 2 and 19 of this Bill enables the Court of Appeal and the High Court to conduct hearings via live video technology. This Bill is important as it provides the necessary adaptations and tools to ensure that judicial resources are used judiciously in a manner that can best uphold rule of law and administration of justice in an effective and meaningful manner. In civil cases, property rights, livelihood and day-to-day provision may be at stake. Often, pending Court proceedings and unsettled disputes are disruptive to the individuals and businesses involved. Timeliness of a just outcome is, therefore, imperative. While a case is pending, landscapes of different industry sectors may change quickly, swiftly with commercial opportunities being lost or forgone. At this juncture, Sir, allow me to declare that I am a practising lawyer. There are three main areas of the Bill that I want to touch on. A common thread seems to be ensuring judicial resources are used judiciously while ensuring that parties’ substantive rights are protected. The first is with regard to vexatious litigants. Clauses 10 and 11 introduce a greater range of tools to vexatious litigation.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his insightful answer. This is a catastrophic human tragedy. Following the UN Fact-Finding Mission report in September of this year, the UNHRC took the additional step of deciding to set up a team to investigate further alleged atrocities. May I ask what is Singapore's position on the setting up of this team and what is ASEAN's perspective of the alleged atrocities?”
“” As not all applications for winding up end in an order for winding up and since not all judicial management cases will end in winding up, was it intended for the law on provability of debts to change its reference point from the making of the winding up order on the one hand to the making of such applications on the other? I seek the Senior Minister of State's clarification on this one. Besides some major amendments, Sir, this Bill also continues to refine the relevant regimes. For instance, clause 102 omits personal liability for judicial managers. Clause 250(1) and clause 186 address issues that have arisen before our Courts. Even as this Bill is a capstone to the preceding amendments which strategically positioned Singapore to be an international debt restructuring centre, it is important, just as these amendments have done, to continue to refine the processes for clarity, better calibration and balancing of interests. Essentially, it is a work-in-progress. In conclusion, Sir, just as the shift in name signifies a symbolic change in our bankruptcy law, from Bankruptcy to Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill, this Bill also fortifies Singapore’s resolve and positioning as an international debt restructuring centre. Therefore, I support the Bill.”
“Allow me to explain. Clause 218(2) provides that "the following are provable where a company is in judicial management or an insolvent company is being wound up: (a) any debt or liability in which the company (i) is subject at the commencement of the judicial management or winding up, as the case may be." The next paragraph also references the commencement of judicial management or winding up. Clause 126(2) defines commencement of winding up as “the time of the making of the application for the winding up.” In contrast, the current section 87(1) of the Bankruptcy Act on which clause 218(1) is based reads “the following are provable in bankruptcy: (a) any debt or liability to which a bankrupt (i) is subject at the date of the bankruptcy order; or (ii) may become subject before the bankrupt’s discharge by reason of any obligation incurred before the date of the bankruptcy order.” Therefore, as seen by the current section 59 of the Bankruptcy Act, the bankruptcy order and bankruptcy application are different. Whether or not the reference point for provable debts is from a winding up order or from commencement of winding up, that is, the winding up application, has practical implications. Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore point out “if the legal position is such that a person cannot prove for a debt incurred after he has knowledge of a winding up application, a company’s business would effectively be paralysed by the filing of a winding up application… since a prudent businessman is unlikely to deal with a company which is the subject of a winding up application.”
“What safeguards are there to ensure that the secured creditor's interests in having a security are not unfairly prejudiced, even as this amendment seeks to ascertain assets and liability early for a more efficient administration of the bankruptcy? The second is clause 440, which restricts ipso facto clauses in relation to judicial management and schemes of arrangement. I heard the Senior Minister of State expound quite fluidly on ipso facto clauses when he first read the Second Reading speech. Allow me to share my views on it. Ipso facto clauses allow termination or modification of the contract upon the occurrence of a specified trigger event. In principle, this provision is important because it ensures that the objectives of an attempted rehabilitation of the company are achieved. However, this is not without consequences. It may alter risk-allocation and also may increase uncertainty. The Revised Report of the Insolvency Law Reform Committee stated, "ability of the insolvent company to cherry-pick contracts would disrupt the rules on set-off and netting by making it difficult to isolate which contracts should be eligible for set-off or netting." Nevertheless, this is not something novel for Singapore. Other jurisdictions have looked into having a similar provision before, for example, my research shows the US, Canada, France and Australia. Having said so, I seek a clarification from the good Senior Minister of State, how is clause 440 calibrated to balance between these different considerations and reduce possible negative market impact? Moving on, Sir, regarding the proof of debts, was it intended for the law on provability of debts to change its reference point from the making of the winding up order to the making of the application for winding up?”
“Previously, it was a blanket ban against anyone who had "been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty punishable on conviction by imprisonment for three months or more." The Bill expands the inquiry to having a judgment in civil proceedings involving a finding of fraud, dishonesty or breach of fiduciary duty; or conviction of an offence in Singapore or elsewhere of any offence involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude. Sir, allow me now to declare my interest that I am a practising lawyer whose practice includes insolvency. With regard to this regime, what is the purpose of specifying 30 June as the date on which a valid licence that is not renewed would expire? For that, see clause 53(2), especially since it seems as though the renewal for licences would all come at the same time. Also, since it seems as though a written direction can convert a condition into a criminal offence if the condition was not complied with, what sort of conditions are envisioned that a licensing officer may specify under clause 52(2), especially those applicable to a specified licensee only? I would be very open to hearing the Senior Minister of State's clarifications on these points. There are also some amendments that alter contractual rights. The first is that affecting secured creditors of personal bankrupts. Under clause 327(4)(A), a secured creditor is required to notify an intention to claim interest in respect of his or her debt after a bankruptcy order is made. Secured creditors enjoy proprietary interest such that the security is, in the context of a company, not considered part of the company's assets.”
“Sir, this Bill will further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring centre. With this Bill, there is now no need to extensively cross-reference the Companies Act and Bankruptcy Act to see how the latter is adapted to suit corporate insolvency. By being located in a single statute, the law becomes clearer and much more accessible. This allows some who are less familiar with our laws to consider utilising our debt restructuring regime. It is advantageous. Notwithstanding the focus is on companies – hence, the title Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution – the Bill also contains personal bankruptcy law. This decision to keep the two bankruptcy laws within the same statute recognises that there are common principles in both situations. Both involve a balancing of the myriad of interests in a situation where a debtor cannot repay his or her or its creditors. Such concerns may include giving the bankrupt another chance, a trade creditor's own need for cash flow, and employees getting paid and keeping their jobs, as eloquently put forward by Mr Patrick Tay moments ago. Nevertheless, the very nature of a company gives rise to separate concerns. As a separate legal personality, its owners experience limited liability and it may be dissolved. Therefore, there are different regimes for each kind of bankruptcy. A main feature of this Bill is the licensing regime for insolvency practitioners in Division 3 of Part 3. It seeks to govern liquidators, judicial managers, receivers or managers and those appointed to those positions in the interim. The requirements are more stringent than previously.”
“Much work has been put in by the team at MOH, the Committee itself, and MOH working with many agencies. It is a rational plan. The key is to make it sustainable. Therefore, I support the Motion.”
“He or she does not know for how long she will need it. Assuming that general inflation is 2% per year, $600 now would be worth about $430 10 years later in what it can buy. Yes, it is good that the payouts can continue to a lifetime, but how do we ensure they remain sufficient in light of inflation? Medical inflation, I think, is higher than general inflation. Another question I have is whether the severely disabled from the existing cohorts from CareShield Life will be excluded. I really hope not. If they never had a chance to purchase ElderShield, arguably, more than anyone right now, they need the support which CareShield Life is going to provide to the future cohorts. Another question I have is: if a person recovers from his or her severe disability and no longer receives payouts, what happens to his or her premium after that and at what level would the payouts be if the person fulfils the criteria at another time? Since CareShield Life has lifetime coverage and is universal, including those in future cohorts with pre-existing disabilities, if a person recovers, it makes sense, in my view, for him or her to still be enrolled under this scheme. It is important to keep this mandatory CareShield Life scheme sustainable. At page 29 of the well-written Report, it says, “Several large insurance companies have exited the long-term care insurance market due to unsustainable losses, while those that remained have sharply increased premiums and tightened their underwriting criteria.” That is for several large insurance companies. Therefore, ensuring fiscal prudence for this endeavour is key. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to put on record my support for the adoption of this White Paper and the CareShield Life scheme it maps out.”
“Although the pay-as-you-go scheme in Switzerland faces less concerns about being sustainable, a concern is that the premiums are expensive. There, the health insurance covers up to 60 hours of care services a week, but with premiums from birth to life and varying by insurer, age, gender and insurance plan, the average annual premium in 2015 was $5,386. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would submit, the way we have structured it in Singapore as a pre-funded universal scheme helps to balance both present affordability as well as future sustainability. And to remain responsible stewards for future generations, I would say that we need to balance the equal priorities of affordability and financial sustainability. Allow me to move on to a different topic of my speech, Sir, on payouts. In terms of payouts, CareShield Life comes in the form of cash and not in the form of service. This is good, because it gives the individual and caregiver more flexibility in arranging care. It also accommodates the wide buffet of options out there. But whether or not the payouts meaningfully relieve a burden for the long-term also depends on this question: are long-term care costs affordable? In April this year, although there was an overall decrease from 20% in 2014 to 9.6% last year, Singapore still ranks high in terms of medical inflation. In light of this, what has the Government done, or what will it do, to make sure that long-term care costs are kept affordable? Another feature of this scheme is that, over the years, as a person pays more premiums, the payout in the event of a severe disability also increases. But if we think about it, when someone becomes severely disabled and receives a cash payout from CareShield Life, his or her future is still uncertain.”
“Essentially, I hope the message is that what the Government is stating today is to take care to ensure that there are measures in place to ensure premium reviews are done with caution and with a slew of measures to assist Singaporeans. And this is the way we do things in Singapore. Furthermore, the White Paper recommends additional premium support by the Government beyond subsidies as the last resort to ensure that no one will drop out of the scheme. Additionally, because it is prefunded, we need not worry that our children's generation is shouldering the load of the scheme. The effect of a smaller population will be minimised and the scheme will be sustainable. While this is different from other countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Germany and Switzerland, where they use a pay-as-you-go system, this system is one that is more sustainable and equitable for long-term care where the costs increase with the age of the cohort. In fact, the CD Howe Institute suggested that the Canadian province of New Brunswick mitigates the impact of rising costs in some healthcare services by selectively converting some particularly age-sensitive costs to prefunding instead of pay-as-you-go, example, long-term care. Some countries with pay-as-you-go schemes are struggling with the financial sustainability of the schemes. For instance, Japan is exploring raising co-payment from 10% or tightening the eligibility criteria. South Korea is looking into raising the percentage of the income being contributed. As of last year, long-term care insurance premiums are 2.55% of the income, split equally between employer and employee, with those without children paying an extra 0.25% of their income.”
“There will also be permanent means-tested subsidies of up to 30% to help lower- to middle-income Singaporeans. For those with a monthly per capita household income of $1,100 or less, it is a 30% subsidy rate. For those $1,101 to $1,800, 25%. For those with $1,801 to $2,600, 20%. This helps to balance premium affordability with the scheme's sustainability. Those twinned priorities of affordability and sustainability are of equal significance, equal importance, for our current Singaporeans and future Singaporeans. Take, for example, Switzerland. In Switzerland, although the long-term care insurance is sustainable, affordability is a concern. In 2015, the average annual premiums were around $5,000. In contrast, what we are looking at is about $227 annual premium for males, for the sixth year in the scheme, for those who are 30 years old when the scheme was launched. Furthermore, unlike Japan, where premiums start at 40 years old and continue to be payable until death, premiums for CareShield Life are only payable during the working years of a person's life, from 30 years old to the re-employment age of 67 years old. Here is another statistic to show what the Government is doing to balance affordability with sustainability. The premium payout for those who become severely disabled for 10 years from age 67 to 76, the payouts received are about 12 times the premiums paid. And if the person was eligible for subsidies, payouts are about 18 times the premiums paid. Yes, we want to ensure that premiums remain affordable even in the future. But the slew of measures I have touched on so far provides a formidable and financially sound precedent for the people who will be reviewing premiums in future to consider.”
“Sometimes, it may be that there are other more pressing, urgent financial needs – the children's education, the parent's medical bills – these are legitimate needs. But when it comes to a national policy of budgeting for the nation, we cannot just focus on our current needs. Solutions must possess foresight. And this is where I see CareShield Life coming in. CareShield Life offers lifetime payouts in the event of a severe disability until recovery. ElderShield would give payouts up to six years. Even though this may be enough for more than half of the people who become severely disabled, three in 10 need long-term care for more than 10 years. Lifetime payouts make sure caregivers and individuals do not need to worry about what would happen if this source of help dries up before recovery. So, this is good. Mr Pritam Singh raised the issue of affordability of premiums. Mr Chen Shao Mao did too, and Ms Sylvia Lim alluded to the fact that the Workers' Party will be addressing this point. Do we want lower premiums? Yes, we all do. Do we want to ensure affordability of premiums? Yes, we all do. But how do we translate those wishes into reality? That is the harder job. Let us look at the hard facts to see what the Government will do to make the premiums more affordable for fellow Singaporeans. Currently, the premiums are designed such that the annual MediSave contributions for most working households is sufficient to cover the premium entirely. This is so, even for the lower income. How is this achieved? Through subsidies and transfers. There will be transitional subsidies for the first five years so that people have a good runway to plan and reorder their budget if they need to.”
“Sir, today we are debating an important topic. It will impact many people for many years, both in terms of care as well as costs. Many countries the world over are grappling with increased healthcare costs. In Australia, the Productivity Commission considered healthcare spending to be Australia's greatest future fiscal challenge, with its share in gross domestic product rising from 6.5% to 10.8% in 2060. In Canada, a study by a non-partisan research institute projected a budget deficit, due to increased healthcare spending and income transfer to seniors by 2045. More urgently, a study by Japan researchers show that Asian countries are ageing more quickly than European countries, giving them less time to react or plan for social spending. Currently, Japan faces a 2025 problem when Japan's baby boomers hit 75 and older – the age at which government subsidies increase drastically. Already taking up one-third of the budget, healthcare spending in 2025 is projected to increase by about 30% from the spend in 2015, with a budget deficit problem commencing between 2021 and 2024. Even though our social support system here in Singapore is structured differently from these countries, funding healthcare remains a pressing issue, and lessons from overseas remain relevant to us. The demand for long-term care in the event of a severe disability will go up, from 29,000 cases in 2014 to a projected figure of 69,000 by 2030. While private insurance that insure against disabilities focus on making up for the inability to work, long-term care is often overlooked or neglected. This may be because the possibility of being disabled does not cross a person's mind.”
“Why is it necessary to impose costs since there is no legal representation? What will be done to ensure that costs will not inject uncertainty into the system? Would the good Senior Minister of State also ensure costs will not deter legitimate claims being brought by those who may be afraid of getting hit with a costs order? Lastly, in the series of questions, can the public be assured that any costs order will still be less than those for claims filed in the State Courts? This Bill also uses an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, that is, mediation, to further enhance its tools for dispute resolution. Clause 7 gives scope for a heavier reliance on mediation. In conclusion, Sir, this Bill helps enhance access to justice through the enhancement and clarification of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction. And, therefore, I support the Bill.”
“A similar restriction is applied to claims being heard together by order of the tribunal under section 26 of the current Act because of a common question of fact or law, or because the claims arose out of the same cause of action or because of the interests of justice. Another expansion of the jurisdiction is through the inclusion of some hire purchase agreements, that is, those that fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act. Previously, cases related to cancellation of timeshare and timeshare-related contracts during the cooling-off period, deposits paid in motor vehicle sale contracts and disputes arising from a contract to buy or sell foreign currency notes made with a licensed moneychanger were brought within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals through the amendment to the CPFTA of 2008. However, at that time, hire purchase agreements were not included and, therefore, would the Minister kindly explain the previous rationale for restricting the jurisdiction regarding hire purchase agreements and why the same concerns do not arise today? Yet another expansion of jurisdiction is the extension of the limitation period from one to two years. This provides a bit more leeway for parties to explore different ways to resolve their disputes before bringing the claim before the tribunal. This is especially important in trade relationships where parties may value a continuing working relationship more than a full and open assertion of each other’s rights. Secondly, clause 9 puts into statute an active judge-led approach to Tribunal cases. It requires the tribunal to identify the relevant issues and to ensure that relevant evidence is adduced before it. However, I would like to enquire about the rationale for imposing costs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. First established in 1985, the Tribunals provide a quick and inexpensive forum for the resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers. This forum has been utilised quite heavily. Starting out with a caseload of about 3,000, the Tribunals disposed of approximately 39,000 cases in 1998 and 1999. In the most recent statistics available, the numbers were 10,908 in 2015; 10,266 in 2016; and a projected 9,700 in 2017. This Bill further enhances the Tribunals' bid to promote access to justice in a few ways. Sir, allow me to expand on some important features of this Bill, but before I do so, please allow me to declare my interest as a practising lawyer. Firstly, this Bill expands the scope of the Tribunals' jurisdiction. The threshold in terms of quantum of claim has been raised. This is a welcome update of the threshold and is not the first time the jurisdiction threshold has been amended. In 1984, the threshold was $2,000, with the rationale that resolving such claims through the normal civil Courts may be seen to be costly. It was raised in 1995 to $5,000 and then $10,000 with consent; and, subsequently, to $10,000 and $20,000 with consent in 1997. There have also been important clarifications made to ensure that the monetary limit is applied meaningfully. Under clause 13, the aggregate value of the claims of persons represented in a representative claim must not exceed the monetary limit. While this will not restrict others from bringing their claims through the Tribunals by not aggregating their claim under that representative, it makes sure that a defendant will not face a high-stake claim that exceeds the monetary limit.”
“Therefore, Mr Speaker, because of these two broad reasons, first, this Bill honours our international obligations, and second, it strengthens the enforcement of IP rights across our border, I support the Bill.”
“” Therefore, I would like to ask, what is being done to ensure that we have sufficient operational resources such that the relevant officers will have the necessary knowledge or expertise to be able to discern what information is necessary “to enable any action to be taken in relation to future shipments of goods” and whether information sought is, indeed, “necessary” to institute infringement action? This Bill also seeks to rationalise border enforcement procedure across the four statutory regimes under the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Registered Designs Act, and Geographical Indicators Act 2014. In relation to this, why is it that the distinction between goods in transit that are consigned and those that are not consigned is not drawn for the Geographical Indicators Act and Registered Designs Act at clauses 47 and 53 but are drawn for the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act at clauses 7, 25, 60 and 78? Because costs involved in exports and imports have tended to decrease and exported and imported goods have become more widely available, this Bill plays an important role in enhancing our border enforcement of intellectual property. Besides enhancing our border enforcement of IP rights, this Bill helps us honour our obligations under EUSFTA. Furthermore, international agreements are particularly important in IP law because of the principle of territoriality which states that “IP rights granted and recognised in one country are protected within the territory of that country only.” In an increasingly interconnected world and globalised market, the importance of international agreements is heightened further.”
“Therefore, I would like to seek clarification from the good Senior Minister of State the respective roles of the Minister and Director-General in this area. This power to detain is supported by making it easier for the authorities and the IP right holder to get certain information. As the phrase “any information or document that the officer considers relevant for”… “statistical or research purposes” is quite broad, I would like to seek, therefore, clarification on what sort of document, information, research or statistic is envisioned behind the grounds to get such information. This broad access to information is augmented by preserving the privilege against self-incrimination. I am referring to the new section 140EA(5) of the Copyright Act as inserted by clause 4 and other similar clauses. I have two questions regarding this. One, would a bare assertion that the information would expose a person to criminal liability be sufficient to trigger this provision; and two, the provision says that the document or information is not admissible in evidence against the person in criminal proceedings except under some circumstances, for example, where false information was provided. But, for example, in a normal criminal trial, if the accused chooses to give evidence, he would generally need to answer any question or risk having an adverse inference drawn against him. Therefore, to what extent is this provision meant to operate? This Bill, which implements our obligations under the EUSFTA, will be implemented in phases, as indicated in the press release and reflected in the Bill. According to the press release, this is “in accordance with Singapore’s EUSFTA obligations and Customs’ operational needs.”
“Additionally, detention can be initiated by the IP right holder and not just a state official. However, the consequences of a wrongful detention of allegedly infringed goods can be very costly and disruptive to the importer and exporter. To prevent abuse, a balance has been struck by getting the requestor to pay compensation for loss or damage as a result of the seizure if the requestor requests to detain the suspected infringing goods but did not institute any infringement action in the end. While the test is not new, for example, section 140IA of the current Copyright Act, I would like to ask how effective has this test been in striking the balance between swift and effective action and deterring potential misuse of power. I would also like to seek more clarity on the difference between what the Director-General can prescribe and what the Minister can make rules on. This is in relation to the notice to request for detention of suspected infringing goods. The Director-General is to determine the form of the notice, which is supported by such documents and information as the Director-General may require, yet the Minister is to make rules for the manner in which notices are to be given and for the giving of information and evidence to the Director-General. Additionally, the explanatory statement says that clause 35 enables forms of notices “to be determined by the Director-General (instead of being prescribed in the rules).” Because of the distinction drawn by the High Court in the case of Cheong Seok Leng, between actions that have a legislative effect and those that are executive or administrative, rule prescription and executive decisions do not seem interchangeable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill because it strengthens our border enforcement of IP rights and honours our international obligations. IP rights are important. They promote creativity, innovation. The four statutory IP rights regimes, which this Bill seeks to amend, relate to copyright, registered design, geographical indicators, and trade marks. At this point, I should declare that I am a practising lawyer whose practice includes IP Law. IP rights allow branding and quality assurance through exclusive access to goodwill of products from a particular brand or a place of origin. They also allow “creators” to support themselves through their creations by recognising and protecting the property within their creations. In fact, the Copyright (Gramophone Records and Government Broadcasting) Act 1968 was enacted to “deal with the increase in the importation and sale of pirated records of copyrighted musical works”, which “threatened the livelihood of local artistes, composers and musicians”. Therefore, protecting IP rights prevents theft – not of tangible goods per se, but of an intangible good. The protection of IP provides an incentive for and rewards creativity and innovation, extending even to software creation! By promoting innovation and art, society benefits through the protection of IP rights. How this Bill strengthens the enforcement of IP rights is through the framework of detention, further supported by easier access to information. Detention is important because the protection of the intangible IP right rests in the tangible goods which bear the IP right. This Bill expands the scope of the power to detain to include, not just the import, but also the export of copies of alleged infringing goods.”
“Sir, it is extremely sad that we have deaths related to SAF training. My follow-up question is in relation to the unfortunate death of SCDF CPL Kok at Tuas View Fire Station. Can the Minister for Home Affairs assure us that all steps are being taken to help ensure that such an unfortunate and unnecessary death does not happen again?”
“That responsibility of leadership is shared by everyone. Every Member of this House shares that responsibility, including all residents we serve. So, my hope, my humble hope, is that aspirations of Singapore, with which I started my speech, and the aspirations of all Singaporeans we have the sacred duty to represent here in this Chamber, will be held in the precious crucible of teamwork and correct motivation. It matters less to me the good traits of an individual or a group of individuals. It matters more to me that the values and principles of incorruptibility, the dare to aspire, the right motivations, importance of selfless service and strong teamwork continue to be the genetic make-up of any team that is to propel Singapore to greater heights. That makes for a very secure formula, a very unique formula, that will benefit Singaporeans for generations to come. That formula of teamwork will ensure that Singaporeans will win. [Applause.] 3.02 pm”
“But besides aspiration that gives us direction and, teamwork, which is the all-important glue, it is the motivation to serve that is the fuel that keeps the ship of Singapore going. At its base, it is not just about teamwork or advancing the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans, but it is about our motivation, what makes us tick. The reason why we are here: it is serving Singapore and Singaporeans. Allow me to share two examples. Dr Balaji Sadasivan, a man I deeply respect. In 2010, unfortunately, he had come down with cancer and, being a doctor himself, knew that he did not have much time more. I remember seeing him coming to Parliament two weeks before he passed away. He already looked drawn and thin. In the Members' Room, I saw him sit down with Mr Inderjit Singh, and I think the Prime Minister was there, too. And he was explaining to Mr Inderjit Singh and the Prime Minister all the duties that had to be fulfilled so that the residents in Dr Balaji's ward in Ang Mo Kio would continue to be served and would not be prejudiced by his illness. He passed away two weeks later. That made a lasting impression on me. To me, Dr Balaji displayed a motivation so pure. And other examples are the many former back-benchers and front-benchers who continue to serve with vigour and rigour: Mr S Chandra Das, Dr S Vasoo, Mr Lau Ping Sum, Mr Zainal Abidin Rasheed and many, many more. The motivation for coming into politics is to serve; to serve as part of a team. The conclusion I have drawn thus far is that, if there is right motivation and there is teamwork, we will have an effective and efficient Parliament, which makes for an effective and efficient Cabinet, which makes for an effective and good Prime Minister; a strong leader.”
“Sometimes, there are about six to seven Members in the political delegation, made up of front- and back-benchers as well as the team leader. Two years ago, I witnessed first-hand how our Prime Minister engaged with President Barack Obama on the state visit to Washington DC. I saw how he, as the leader of the team and of the Government, was clear in his mind what our positions were and how he engaged with the Americans on many topics and fronts. But there were other team members, too, including Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, whom I saw first-hand engaging world leaders – people like Mr Joe Biden, Mr John Kerry and Ms Susan Rice – on significant issues. Part of that same delegation were Mr S Iswaran, Mr Chan Chun Sing, Mr Ong Ye Kung, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Chia Yong Yong. Each one had a significant role to play. Again, the point I am making is that teamwork is key. It cannot rest on the shoulders of one man or one woman. Another illustration of how teamwork is important is through the previous debate on the President's Address in January 2016. During the debate, Minister Heng Swee Keat was able to gather the views of many of us who shared our aspirations for our country and the constituents we serve and, during the debate, attributed many of these points to the Members present. Again, such attribution shows how each Member of the House has something to give. And each of us here lean on our grassroots leaders, community volunteers and, certainly, our families to serve each resident. I am sorry I have not mentioned all Members in my speech. But this does not detract from the point that I am trying to make: that all of us here, and, indeed, every resident that we serve, have a role in the next chapter of our Singapore story.”
“Equally important are the times the Prime Minister has had to deal with matters from the front, leading the team and the debate publicly on difficult topics and policies. Yet, often times, the responsibility does not rest with the Prime Minister alone. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean weighed in on heavy topics, such as Ministerial Salaries, and the Little India riot. I was here, I saw them first-hand. These are heavy topics and displayed how important teamwork is in Parliament, in Cabinet and in the caring for Singapore. It is not a one-man show. Teamwork is important and this was so for the recent debates on the Motions on terrorism and the drug menace. Minister K Shanmugam was deep in his thinking to agree that these were important topics to debate and, hence, rendered his support at the Ministerial level, and even participated in the debate. As there were many things on his plate at that time in the lead-up to the debate, the GPC worked with Minister Desmond Lee, Mrs Josephine Teo and Mr Amrin Amin. Topics discussed were what are the enforcement capabilities that we can deliver in terms of reducing the drug menace, how we could overcome or mend the break in trust if an attack did vest on our shores – these were some of the types of questions the GPC and Members had to ask of them. Why? In order that the debates displayed accurately the capability of our forces and that, what we say, we do, so, the threats are deterred as best we can. After all, that was the team's aim for the debate. Therefore, it is a team effort among many different Ministers, Ministries and, indeed, Members of this House. It is a structure that does not rest on the shoulders of one man or one woman. This is even more evident when we see in action the Singapore team travel on state visits.”
“Even as we recognise the importance of "upholding international law and the role of supra-national institutions", we need to make sure we retain the ability to stand for what we believe is best for Singapore. Aspirations help to direct, to navigate, a new course for our nation's future. In this, teamwork is key. It is teamwork that helps direct the course of the ship and maintains her seaworthiness in times of squall or in times of calm. Teamwork is key. Over the years of being a Member of Parliament, I have seen how teamwork is key. I truly hope that there will not be over-focus on one person or persons. I would much rather that the team be looked at for the prowess and the calibre of the whole team and not the characteristics of an individual person. Allow me to share, from my experiences, why I think this is very important. There are occasions when I raise issues that are close to my heart with the Prime Minister. In some instances, the Prime Minister would support the ideas I had suggested. For example, I had asked the Prime Minister to consider whether he would support the introduction of a Private Member's Bill on the Prevention of Human Trafficking. The Prime Minister offered his guidance and shared his insights on how any introduction of a new law would entail collaboration with multiple agencies, in terms of enforcement and that, at some stages, the path to a private Bill would be tough. Yet, the Prime Minister supported it and it was very much a team effort between Minister Masagos from Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Minister Chan Chun Sing who was leading MSF at the time and Minister Tan Chuan-Jin who helmed MOM. Without Prime Minister's support, and each of the Ministers lending their weight to the policy, it would not have been pushed into law.”
“Therefore, for as long as they are here, we should be stewards of their lives, we should be good hosts, to build up and benefit their lives as they have ours. How this fits in with aspirations to "secure a place in the world for Singapore" is that, by doing so, the foreign workers will leave with fond memories of Singapore, that the links built will forge the path for reciprocal goodwill and friendship. In this way, we can build up an overseas family of workers who have once worked and lived in Singapore, and secure a place in the world for Singapore and for her values. A third aspiration I wish to talk about today is the ability to make tough decisions. The President said that we need to be able to go for bold changes, not merely to be content to tweak at the margins. To take such an approach, we need to make sure we retain the ability to make tough decisions. For example, when renewing casino licences every three years, the question for us should not just be whether there should be a three-year extension but the question we should visit and contemplate is a more fundamental one: whether in this present economic climate, we need casinos at all. Being able to revisit decisions, as tough as such revisiting is, must always be on the cards. This will also make sure that we are not overly reliant on the revenue generated from casinos to meet national expenditure. It creates the discipline of prudence. We should never get into a corner where we have to rely on tax on gambling revenue to meet expenditure needs. So, tough decisions must include revisiting policies. A similar aspiration applies in the international arena.”