Dennis Tan Lip Fong
Singapore
“Yes, Sir. By combining practical experience with advanced analytics, we can transform traditional operational careers in the highly productive technology-enabled professions, ensuring that more high-value decision-making and better paying jobs remain in Singapore.”
“When Singapore officers are deployed at Bukit Chagar in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, do they enjoy the same legal protections and operational autonomy as their Malaysian counterparts enjoy when stationed in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Relating to one issue of co-parenting, I would like to ask will the Ministry consider granting foster parents synchronised access to the child's Health Buddy app? Currently, foster parents have no access to the app and require the cooperation of biological parents.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Would the Ministry consider a tiered co-payment model for private providers similar to the EIPIC-P scheme where middle-income families can pay a regulated rate for a fixed number of additional private therapy hours to supplement their child's public intervention?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Government for acknowledging the gap regarding the software-driven energy degradation and for the commitment to monitor and test when necessary.”
“Yes, just a quick clarification. I thank the Minister of State for the answers and the details. The feedback I receive is pertaining, especially to making appointments, because there have been instances where foster parents experience appointments being cancelled without their knowledge, and then having to arrive at the hospital unnecessa…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,079 lines we hold for Dennis Tan Lip Fong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 22.
“In response to my Parliamentary Question on the status of Clementi Forest in January this year, the Government claimed that the zoning of the site for residential use will be retained, while giving our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing, if the need arises. But if we continue to operate with the assumption that we can always free up more forests or indeed coastal eco-systems for infrastructural development, we will run the risk of relying on a land use planning paradigm that is far more inefficient and short-sighted than the Government may wish to recognise. I wish to propose the following steps we can take to better plan our land use with the aim of sustainably developing Singapore. Firstly, track and publish changes in land use areas in Singapore on a biennial basis. This can be done relatively cheaply with the use of high-resolution satellite imagery and geographical information systems (GIS). Secondly, re-assess plans for existing forested areas by taking into account the full costs of development. To do this, environmental impact assessments should be conducted in a more transparent manner, engaging multiple stakeholders, including the public, during the process. Thirdly, provide more secondary forests with greater protection under the law. A portion of these areas could be afforded greater protection, similar to those in nature reserves, while others could be regulated under the different regime to enable Singaporeans to benefit from simpler recreational activities which are less destructive in nature.”
“While it may be tempting to think of planting new trees elsewhere to mitigate these losses, we must remember that we are talking about the loss of benefits derived from centuries if not millennia of carbon accumulation and decades of forest regrowth which make it possible for forests to carry out the functions I mentioned earlier. This natural heritage is one that we relinquish at our peril. Today, we live in an urban landscape where primary forests cover only approximately 0.28% of our area and where less than 20.2% is covered by vegetation that is not dominated by human management, although with varying degrees of protection under the law. That we even have some of these green spaces left is due to our vibrant civil society consisting of academics, NGOs such as the Nature Society and passionate individuals. They are surveyors of our eco-systems and stewards of our environment, many of whom engage in public education. It is due to their decades of commitment – not without significant pushback from the state in the past – that we have such areas as Sungei Buloh and Chek Jawa intact. Today, our diverse community of academics and activists, both seasoned and young, have given us a better understanding of the value of many other areas including Clementi and Dover Forests. Thus, I hope the House will support our amendment to recognise the role of these civil society stakeholders who must remain key partners in the Government’s efforts to address climate change. Even as the Government continues to engage various stakeholders, not least because of the large degree of influence the State has on land use planning, the onus is on the Government to better protect green spaces in the fight against climate change.”
“The Motion introduced by the respective PAP Members today calls on the Government to work with the private sector and the people of Singapore to respond to climate change. The purpose of our amendment is to include civil society in this call. The pivotal role that civil society stakeholders such as academics and NGOs have played and will continue to play in guiding our response to climate change cannot be understated. To illustrate this point and to argue for how we need to truly embrace sustainability in Singapore, I wish to draw the House’s attention to the example of the conservation of our forested areas. Forested spaces play a critical role in our response to climate change. Their vegetation and sediments act as carbon sinks, thus helping to mitigate a rise in greenhouse gas emissions. They also help to cool our urban environment – meaning a decrease in forest cover will worsen the urban heat island effect in various parts of our city-state, thereby adding to the threat of rising temperatures due to climate change on our future urban liveability. We know that forests play these important roles thanks to research by academics in Singapore. Of recent interest has been the zoning of two secondary forests – Clementi Forest and Dover Forest – for residential development. The benefits of developing housing are obvious, and these benefits are ones that we should not write off in principle. But we must also commit to seriously assessing the cost of clearing our natural capital.”
“I took the opportunity to ask the Government for an update on our efforts since the Unity Budget, and for an assurance that Singapore is on track to meet our goals and timelines for the Paris Agreement. No answer was given then. Today, I would like to repeat my call to the Government to provide the House with an update on our efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. I would also like to ask how we are working with other countries, especially our ASEAN neighbours, to curb global emissions. With major investments in adaptation strategies forthcoming and because the full force of climate change has not been felt by Singaporeans yet and may thus seem intangible today, it will be important to foster public buy-in and support for these efforts. Hence, before it is too late for the world to limit warming to 1.5-degree Celsius and for us in Singapore to plan our adaptation strategies robustly, a crucial first step is to recognise climate change as the emergency that it is. I hope Members will agree with me that this is an important step by which the Motion today can be strengthened. While declaring a climate emergency will send a clear collective signal, it is not enough. Because we must act. The impacts of climate change are complicated and will be felt across our country, by our biodiversity and by our people too. People of all socio-economic backgrounds, including those who may find some policy adjustments more difficult to cope with than others. It is for this reason that we need to work together with multiple stakeholders to chart the future of our sustainable development. This brings me to the second part of the amendment we are proposing.”
“These costs, in both monetary terms and in terms of the cost to human safety, will add up over the decades. Simultaneously, we are also warned that droughts may become more frequent. What could this mean for our water security as the supplies of water from our local catchments as well as from catchments which supply our imported water decrease? Another consequence of climate change for Singapore is, of course, sea level rise. With 30% of our land lying within 15 metres above mean sea level, sea level rise in the longer term could inundate low-lying areas including neighbourhoods, vital industrial areas and parts of the Central Business District. Last year, I mentioned in the House that even under an optimistic emissions scenario, sea level in Singapore could rise by half a metre by 2100. However, there is still uncertainty regarding this figure. Studies also suggest that IPCC projections for global mean sea level rise by 2100 tend to be conservative, where high emissions scenarios are concerned. This is why we need to continue investing in research to better project sea level rise in Singapore. We should also think about the kind of planning principles we should aim for in adapting to sea level rise. As we consider different options such as the building of extensive polders as well as other coastal management measures such as nature-based solutions, we must seriously consider all options on the table together with all stakeholders. In my supplementary Budget Debate speech in October 2020, I said that, even as the Government tackle the effects of COVID on our economy, we must concurrently work on our efforts to address the climate emergency.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I beg to move the following amendments: (1) In line 2, after the words “That this House” to insert the words “acknowledges a climate emergency and”; (2) In line 2, after the words “private sector” to insert a comma and the words “civil society”. With your permission, Sir, I wish to explain the rationale for these amendments which the Workers’ Party is proposing today. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers’ Party calls on this House to declare a climate emergency and bring to bear the necessary tools to respond to it. As we have heard from the Members who have brought the Motion to the House today, so far, I am hopeful that there is common understanding of the seriousness of the threats posed by climate change on both sides of this Chamber. Declaring a climate emergency on top of the original Motion will send a clear signal to Singaporeans and the world that our nation is committed to seriously addressing one of the most long-term threats we face in the 21st century. For Singapore, two consequences of climate change stand out. The first is an increase in how variable and unpredictable our weather may become. Singaporeans will remember very well the period of intense rainfall we experienced in the first half of January this year, the second wettest January since records began in 1869. While it would be incorrect to assume that these downpours were direct evidence of climate change, the increased frequency of intense rainfall may emerge as a very real consequence of a changing climate in Singapore over longer scales of time. Thus, what happened in January may have been a foreshadowing of future costs we will have to bear – the cost of floods, of mudslides and landslides, and of potholes.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. For a low-lying island nation like ours, climate change is an existential threat. At the global scale, when the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, nations around the world came together with the aim of limiting global warming to 1.5-degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels with an understanding that a two-degree Celsius rise would lead to major environmental risks. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that: one, we have already reached warming of one-degree Celsius; two, that we are likely to reach 1.5-degree Celsius between 2030 and 2052; and three, that a slate of worrying impacts involving changes to sea level, temperature and rainfall will still be experienced by 2100 even if warming is limited to 1.5-degree Celsius. At the local scale, these changes will cause significant problems for Singapore. Sea level rise, threats to our water and food security, and an increased risk of vector-borne diseases are but a few of these impacts. The magnitude of these impacts will depend on how global emissions evolve, the influence of regional factors, and, ultimately, whether we can rise to the challenge of doing our part to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Addressing this challenge will require us to acknowledge the urgency of the threats before us and to empower multiple stakeholders – from businesses and the public, to civil society including academia and NGOs – to come together to respond to the threat of climate change. On this note, with your permission Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce an amendment to the Motion before the House.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the two Ministers for their Ministerial Statements. Minister Lawrence Wong made some comments in respect of the Parliamentary Question I filed for tomorrow's sitting. Essentially, I have asked whether the Government is considering or working on a rechargeable version of the TraceTogether token and whether battery replacement for the current version will be provided without charges. I would just like to see some clarification from the Minister following his comments. Does it mean that the Government will provide free replacement of the current token, free replacement with similar models, not a rechargeable version when the battery runs out, say after six months? I read the literature that the battery will last about six months. My second clarification is, has the Government already computed at this current non-rechargeable version, if supplied free of charge to all Singaporeans, will cause the Government less in the longer term as compared to a rechargeable version? And this is not forgetting the environmental costs arising from the current model.”
“I thank the Minister for the response so far. I just have one question. What is the reasoning behind the Malaysian government's reason for the change on their position on the AssetsCo?”
“Indeed, I would exhort the Singapore Judicial College to continue to enhance its training for Judges in the State Courts in the areas I have talked about, which in my respectful view, will certainly help to reduce any physical gap, using the term as mentioned by the Chief Justice, and to further enhance our justice system. Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon Ms Sylvia Lim has called for a Constitutional review by a Supreme Court Judge, and I humbly submit that that the suggestions in my speech should also be included in such a review to make our justice system even better. I support the Motion.”
“The unrepresented accused person has no clue what he should expect in respect of the sentence. He or she is likely to get, except maybe some gratuitous information fed to him by the IO. He cannot distinguish the authorities submitted by the Prosecutor and would not even be able to rebut the Prosecutor if there is any mistake in applying the authorities to the facts of the case. This common example exemplifies both the resources gap and the literacy gap which the Chief Justice has talked about. While working on improving access, we should also consider how we can enhance the ability of our Judges to reduce the effect of disadvantages faced by such unrepresented accused persons in their experiences in Court. Many of the accused persons who are unrepresented comes from the poorer and less educated strata of our society. These people rely on our judicial officers to mete out decisions and sentences, which will not only be fair to them according to the alleged crimes they are charged for but also bear in mind the handicap they may suffer from not having representation at a time of hearing. To this end, research and training should also include checking against any inadvertent prejudice against the poor or less educated, if that is not already done. It has also been pointed out in an article and titled "Wrongful convictions in Singapore: A general survey of risk factors", dated 2010 Singapore Law Review by Chen Siyuan and Eunice Chua, and this is reported in Singapore Law Reform Review 28 at pages 98 to 122, that there has been reported cases where Judges made wrong assumptions on witnesses' abilities to recall facts and should be trained accordingly. A local Singapore case involving a previous Chief Justice was, in fact sight, cited.”
“If this can be done, the proceedings can still continue fairly for all parties without any pressure on time. Cross-examination does not need to be rushed. Spending more time as a judicial officer, coupled with the right training which can be provided by institutions, such as the Singapore Judicial College, can help to mitigate against factors, such as lacking life experience or lacking sufficient understanding of people from different socio-economic stratas of our society as well as any unwitting misunderstanding or prejudices. Talking about training of judicial officers, it is good to know that training is already being increasingly prioritised. The Singapore Judicial College is a development in the right direction. Set up five years ago, it is reassuring to see a unified training champion for the Supreme and the State Courts. It conducts various programmes, including induction programme for newly appointed Judges and judicial officers. In addition to the hard skills in law administration, there are courses focused on enhancing the experience of the public, such as effective engagement of litigants who are unrepresented. I also note from its Annual Report that the Judicial College has embarked on forthcoming research on litigants-in-person and access to justice in an adversarial system, a topic which is of high importance. That said, lawyers still observe lopsidedness in cases where the accused person is unrepresented. For example, at sentencing hearings, the Prosecutor could be arguing for a particular sentence and submit bundles of authorities for the Judges' consideration. The poor unrepresented accused person will not know how to react to the submission and frequently just ask for leniency.”
“But I am still of the view that it may still be worthwhile for the proposed review that we are proposing to still consider this issue of whether we should have a more specialised or dedicated judicial track at the State Court level, encompassing Magistrates and District Judges, and discontinuing inter-services posting or rotation with other branches of the legal service, particularly with AGC. This may be preferable to the current system to provide more distance between Prosecutors and those working as Magistrates and Judges. For example to avoid having AGC colleagues, some of them being more senior colleagues, arguing cases before them, knowing that they may well be posted back to AGC again in future. Up till now, judicial officers or AGC staff often regard themselves as working for the legal service. It is perhaps time to discard this nomenclature and have a dedicated judicial service set apart from the rest of the legal service. As the familiar administrative law saying goes, "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done." When State Court judicial officers are subject to inter-services postings or rotation, I also wonder whether at the moment sufficient time is given for any judicial officer due to be posted to clear his or her cases without compromising the justice and interest of the parties involved. At the onset, when trial dates are fixed, frequently, it may be difficult to dictate the actual length of hearing days required. Many litigants may require more trial days as the cross-examination may take more time than expected. What happens when the posting is due soon and a trial may possibly not be completed in time? Can or does the judicial officers seek a delay in his or her posting, in the interests of the justice of the litigants of the case?”
“Perhaps, to have someone more senior like eight to 10 years of post-qualification experience. In my view, it is extremely important to convince the public that Judges understand the lives of ordinary people and people of different stratas of society. How should we work towards that? While I am not advocating that we re-introduce the system of jury here, we must understand why some countries continue to cling onto their jury systems – because it is of fundamental importance to them that decisions on life and liberty are made by juries, composed of members of the public from a cross-section of the population. Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of whether to have a separate dedicated Judicial Service in the State Courts have been raised in the past and more recently in wake of Ms Parti Liyani's case. Currently, the Legal Service Commission chooses legal officers will be posted from the Ministries or the AGC into the State Court Judiciary and then out again. In 2014, the Prime Minister did announce the system of greater specialisation among legal officers so that at the middle ranks, officers can be posted either the legal or judicial branches and remain there for some years to hone their experience. While this is a positive move, it still leaves the more junior officers open to posting in and out judicial branch. The posting could also be to and from postings of DPP or Senior DPP. The Law Minister share his views earlier with us on this issue during the Ministerial Statement.”
“In 2010, during the debate for the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, my colleague the hon Ms Sylvia Lim, had asked that then Senior Minister of State of Law Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, about requirement that in order for a person to be appointed as a Magistrate, one need only have held a relevant law degree for one year. At that time, the powers of Magistrate, including power sentencing has already increased over the years. Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee had, some years before, expressed similar concern about whether young Deputy Registrar and Magistrate could be able to dispense justice and apply the law appropriately without, and I quote the former Senior Minister of State, "The wisdom that comes from experience in dealing with matters of the world." Having to defend the policy, in reply to the issues raised by Ms Sylvia Lim, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee sought to assure the House that despite the low minimum requirements, the practice was to appoint judicial officers who exceeded the minimum threshold of one year. In a current version of section 10 of the State Courts Act, there is now the provision at section 10(2) requiring a Magistrate to be a qualified person for not less than three years. However a person can still be a point under section 10(3) if the Chief Justice deems that he is suitable for the appointment even though he has been qualified for between one and three years. Notwithstanding previous assurances that past appointments have been made for persons who have exceeded the minimum threshold, is it now the time to review the minimum requirement of one or even three years under section 10? Would it be prudent now to stipulate higher minimum seniority requirements for judicial officers, especially those handling criminal cases as Magistrates and District Judges?”
“He or she must of course be learned in law and also in the area of specialisation that he or she is known for. Beyond pure commercial law and particularly in areas like criminal and family law, the ability of Judges to understand and empathise with the different challenges faced by litigants of different socio-economic backgrounds is critical and can, in my view, bridge this physical gap. For the next part next part of my speech, I will be talking about Judges selection and training in the State Courts. The hon High Court Judge reviewing Parti Liyani's appeal found that the trial Judge in the State Courts was wrong in applying the legal and evidential burdens of proof. The case generated much attention. While in the interest of justice, it was right and good that the High Court has allowed the appeal in favour of Ms Parti Liyani. We cannot always merely rely on appeals to High Court, righting a wrong done in the Lower Court. To this end, we should strive for even higher standards in all our Courts and, in particular, in the context of the State Court Judges and Magistrates as they are, after all, critical gatekeepers of justice. They need to be carefully chosen, have a strong and right sense of mission and have the training and disposition to carry the torch of justice for those whose lives have been entrusted to them. On the issue of selection, the issue of age and maturity of our judicial officers in the State Courts, has been raised in this House on at least two occasions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start, I would like to declare that I am a lawyer in private practice. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Justice, in his speech, at the Opening of the Legal Year in 2020, suggested three principles ought to guide the redesign of our justice system. The first of the principles he spoke of was the principle of accessibility which he said and I quote, "should be understood in terms of closing the justice gap, which is a metaphor for the problem of unequal access to justice." He said that there are three dimensions to this justice gap. One, a physical gap, that is to say the physical distance between an individual and the institutions of justice. Two, a resources gap which deters the individual from seeking legal recourse due to concerns over cost. Three, a literacy gap which follows from lack of awareness about one's legal rights and remedies. He said that the justice system that seeks to minimise the level of injustice in society must necessarily be interested in closing each of these gaps, thereby enhancing and equalising access to justice. The issue of resources gap has been much talk about and is a continuing work in progress. Despite recent Government efforts to increase access for civil legal aid to the Legal Aid Bureau, many still do not qualify despite the exemplary efforts of many volunteer lawyers under the CLAS scheme and the Law Society pro bono schemes. Beyond the rendering of pro bono advice, many still cannot find someone to represent them in legal proceedings on pro bono basis or the quoted fees of other lawyers may be unaffordable. My colleague the hon Ms He Ting Ru has already touched on this point too. The Chief Justice did not elaborate on the term physical gap. How an average Singaporean thinks of our Judges is important.”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers. I just have two supplementary questions. One, beyond the suspension of the two staff, will LTA look into how the SMRT or indeed, both rail operators, can improve their work processes in future to prevent or mitigate against similar staff, human error in similar situations like this? Two, in respect of the proposed replacement cables by Alstom, whether LTA will require more stringent tests to be conducted on the replacement of the upper layer cables, to ensure that similar faults which were spotted on the current cables on the previous four occasions, as well as which caused 14 October disruption, will not be present in the future replacement cables.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate at short notice. Before I start, let me first declare my interest as a notary public. And as a notary public myself, I have long wondered why Singapore has hitherto not been a party to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.So, I certainly support this Bill. I note the transfer of existing legalisation apostille responsibility from MFA to the Singapore Academy of Law or SAL, and that pursuant to this Bill, once passed, SAL will be the body issuing the relevant certificate. I have some concerns whether this will lead to an increase of the fees which are currently being charged by MFA for apostille related legalisation of documents. I say this, bearing in mind that in October last year, SAL made it mandatory for all documents requiring notarisation to be accompanied by a notarial certificate which would in turn be required to be authenticated by SAL and there were new mandatory authentication charges chargeable for all documents to be notarised. While the intention for authentication is good and understandable, the change in the requirements resulted in additions to the process and paperwork, and additional charges to businesses and individuals. So, I would like to seek the Minister's assurance that with the passing of this Bill, SAL will not increase the fees which are currently being charged by MFA in respect of any apostille certification charges.”
“He emphasised by that having the start date from 1 October, it has "selectively ignored parents who were impacted the most as we do face the same problems or even more than those parents who have their babies from 1 October". He asked, "why were they included for the support and us, who had our babies months earlier, were neglected?" He felt disheartened that "the Government has chosen to ignore us who are directly impacted by the pandemic." I hope that the Government will extend the grant to all children born from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, from February 2020 onwards. Parents who gave birth to children in this period had to bare the brunt of the difficult challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Supplementary Budget.”
“At the same time, they have to continue to pay rent and salaries. I would like to ask whether the Government has any update for these businesses and whether they will be getting any additional assistance. This crisis has also exposed some shortfalls of how our current eco-system may not assist some who have got into trouble because of COVID-19. For example, a constituent of mine is trying to come back from abroad with her two children due to the COVID-19 situation. Job prospects here for her are not good, to say the least, and she does not expect to find a job immediately. She cannot afford to rent commercially. She did not have a relatively high income in the past years but her earnings rendered her ineligible for subsidised HDB rental. She was told to buy a BTO but we all know from present BTO waiting times that she is not likely to get a new BTO at once. Buying a resale flat may pose a difficult financial hurdle. What should a person in her position do? Next, the Government has announced last week that parents with Singaporean children born from 1 October this year to 30 September 2022 can get a one-off $3,000 grant to help them defray the costs of raising a child amid the pandemic. A resident wrote to me over the weekend. He and his wife just had their first baby in August this year. They are baffled that the grant will only apply to parents with children born from 1 October. They had thought that the grant was meant to provide support to new parents during the pandemic period. My resident told me that if the purpose of this grant is to encourage new births amidst the crisis, then the grants should apply to births in nine or 10 months from this month.”
“Others were turned away because their spouse recorded income of more than $70,000 last year or the annual value of their condo has exceeded the annual value limit. For many of these people, they have endured much of this year and face the year-end closing with dwindled savings, and worst, and mounting business and household debts or expenses and worse still, little prospect of their bleak business outlook coming to an end soon. I urge the Government to provide some support to some of these Singaporeans who may have narrowly fallen short the current criteria under SIRS but who may still need help. This is especially if they can show that despite their best efforts in sustaining or restoring the fortunes of their businesses, they are still not out of the woods, or if they can show that they are also actively looking for a job or are undergoing courses to retrain or upgrade themselves. The Government can consider giving them a lower level of grant as compared to the full payout under the scheme to give allowance to the fact that they had originally not complied with the original criteria of the scheme. Unless the Government explicitly expects some of these affected to sell their properties to raise funds, the challenges that many such Singaporeans face cannot be underestimated nor disregarded. How long can they last? Moreover, many in this category have shared that in better times, they have been contributing by paying a higher level of taxes. In their hour of need, surely, some consideration must be given to that. Separately, a resident of mine who owns a discotheque expresses deep concerns about the continuing closure or restrictions on businesses like his. Businesses like his, including clubs and bars, see no end in sight in the restrictions imposed on them.”
“Last month, I had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether there will be further assistance for the self-employed beyond the Self-employed Relief Scheme or SIRS. Minister Josephine Teo said that MOM would study the possibility of extending SIRS. Last Monday Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said in his Ministerial Statement that the Government is studying the support for the self-employed workers who are most vulnerable and will provide an update before the end of the year. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome these announcements and I am sure self-employed Singaporeans who still require assistance will be eyeing the outcome of the Government's deliberations. Meanwhile, I would like to urge the Government to some more of the self-employed Singaporeans who still need help and who have hitherto not receive any assistance at all. Firstly, I like the Government to consider granting limited assistance to at least some of the self-employed Singaporeans who have hitherto been ineligible for SIRS. In some of the SIRS cases I did for my residents, I noticed that cases have, for example, been rejected if in the previous year the applicants have been earning salary of more than $2,300 dollars a month or who have not been earning trade income. Applicants may not have declared trade income in 2019 primarily because they have just started business in that year and have sunk start-up costs into their venture. Income may not become immediately upon starting up a business. It may take time. In some of these cases, they were hoping for business to take off and trade income to come this year. Unfortunately, the COVID crisis took place this year instead and had serious effects on their business. That is why they need help from the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my Unity Budget debate speech in March this year, I spoke on the theme of environmental resiliency and the need to set a bold green agenda to guide Singapore's trajectory development. Deputy Prime Minister Heng said in his Unity Budget speech in February this year that we must address climate change. He said that we will be updating our commitment to the Paris Agreement and take a further step to chart our vision for low carbon sustainable future Singapore. Even as the Government tackle the effects of COVID on our economy and attempt to mitigate its effect and work on the recovery of our economy, we must concurrently work on our efforts to address the climate emergency. We cannot afford to do less. This is not merely because we have timelines and obligations under the Paris Agreement, we also have to keep playing our part to address the climate emergency in the meantime. We cannot afford to let COVID crisis distract, delay or derail us from our pledge to the 36% cut on emissions intensity by 2030. Our COVID recovery efforts and policies must also be sustainable and be planned with sustainability in mind. The importance of sustainability at the forefront of economic recovery should not be underestimated. The World Economic Forum has, in fact, called on all countries to pursue and I quote, "a great reset, a commitment to build a fairer, more sustainable and more resilient future following the COVID crisis". I cannot agree more. May I take the opportunity to ask the Government for an update on our efforts in the past seven to eight months since the Unity Budget and for an assurance that Singapore is on track to meet our goals and timelines for the Paris Agreement. I next move on to certain issues relating to helping those affected by COVID.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive replies. I have one supplementary question. Picking on the experience in handling training and operational matters during the COVID-19 period this year, is the Minister able to share with this House whether the SAF has any plans to enhance its training programme locally or overseas in the coming year, especially if he considers that the COVID-19 situation may have improved as far as the training scenarios are concerned? Thank you – in the coming year, Sir.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one supplementary question. With the expanded COVID-19 Support Grant, there are some feedback that SIRS could be extended, at least at a lower payout level. Many self-employed still have income issues in meeting their financial obligations. Will MOM study this possibility?”
“I thank the hon friend for repeating his question. I am not suggesting the PAP is using the power of incumbency to do those things. But I have raised various incidents that have happened as a result of the actions of certain people. And my point really is that these are all very petty and bad politics, and we should not encourage it. Have I answered your question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for reminding me. Yes, to answer the question, yes, ELD was even-handed in handling the complaints. But what ELD did was, basically, it received a complaint and it asked us to go and rectify it, right? This is what it did. This is specifically referring to the incident about the poster height. I think I have answered the question.”
“I thank the hon Member for asking the question. I think his question is too general. Yes, in terms of the poster height, ELD informed us of a complaint being made and asked us to rectify. So, as I said in my speech, my volunteers went to rectify it and they informed ELD that after the first complaint, the rectification had been made. Two days later, another complaint was made to ELD and we were told about it. Our volunteers went to inspect the complaints directly and made the necessary rectification. And that was when they discovered that actually 12 of the 13 complaints made were actually similar to the previous ones. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am actually repeating myself. I also mentioned about the flags, planting of the flags. So, my point at the end of that section of my speech is really this – that the PAP team at Hougang has planted flags all over, around coffeeshops, a lot of flags around the coffeeshops. And this is something that I think back in 2015, I would never envisage planting Workers' Party flags around the Fengshan Block 85 market or around the coffeeshops in Fengshan. I mean, that was unthinkable to me. My point really is that having seen what happened recently, if this is going to be a precedent that is going to be set by the PAP, perhaps the team in Hougang maybe, then really it raises the wider question of where do you want to draw the line with this kind of behaviour. Because certainly for me, my own standard is, certainly as I said in 2015, I find it unthinkable that I would have gone to Fengshan and plant the Workers' Party flags around the market. So, I made that point, but I think I also ended that on a different note. I said that we have to move beyond this. We cannot do a tit-for-tat in that sense and certainly –”
“We must be aware of the danger, but recognise the opportunities in this crisis so that we do not just overcome the crisis, but truly emerge a Singapore we can all be proud of. 4.20 pm”
“We should also not forget that Singaporeans have underwritten through their tax dollars over the years, the necessary improvements in expansion to our public transportation system. Singapore should rightly expected that the public transportation system must serve the public good without the need for excessive profit-seeking behaviour after the improvements that Singaporeans had paid for and maintain that high level of performance. We, in the Workers' Party will support Singaporeans in demanding the high standard they should expect for our public transport system. Can there be more buses servicing areas in (need?) that are not yet connected by our MRT? Is the bus contracting model able to cater for sufficiently flexible deployment of bus services in growing estates as they look to be less short-term pains for public transport? We must review the medium term vision of our public transport system. Maintaining the sustainability of our public transport system must not be viewed in isolation, line by line, but as a holistic policy objectives to ensure the society at large is well served. And if the Government's position is that taxpayers and commuters must contribute more to achieve this, it should provide detailed figures and arguments for better public debate and understanding so that the public can decide where they wish to draw the line. Mr Speaker, Sir, former US President John F Kennedy, famously said in his speeches that when written in Chinese, the word "crisis" or "危机" represents both danger and opportunity as Minister Dr Tan has also mentioned. There is wisdom about our crisis using unique opportunities that we can seize.”
“Should we not challenge ourselves to take advantage of this opportunity to re-examine our assumptions behind employment and economic policies more holistically so as to better encourage or incentivise, or if necessary, ensure that companies make a greater effort to engage the Singaporean core at different levels of their company. Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we deal with the pressing needs on COVID, there remains the need to relook at policy areas and ensure sustainability in the medium term. With lighter loads on our public transport system now, there is an opportunity to review our public transport policy to better serve Singaporeans. Singaporeans are highly dependent on our public transport system as we seek to build a car-lite society. Our starting point must then be, to put our commuters first over other stakeholders and be world-class leaders in areas such as reliability, affordability and quality, a point I made before in the previous term of Parliament. However, the furrow that has erupted over an announcement by LTA on planned changes to certain bus services in Bukit Panjang has illustrated the underlying tension between what the authorities perceive as prudent fiscal spending and the proper provision of public transportation to our commuters. The Minister for Transport has mentioned on social media the subsidies needed for maintaining the affected MRT and bus services. While I see the need to ensure a degree of sustainability of our public transport, without those subsidies to build the connectivity require for a car-lite society, how can Singapore achieve the goals to reduce the reliance on cars and properly connect Singaporeans to the places they want to go in a reasonable and efficient manner?”
“However, are the new revised salary requirements sufficient to address the concerns of Singaporean PMETs and other workers losing their places to EP and SP holders? We have heard much anecdotal discussion online or in the coffeeshops about the notoriety of the finance or IT industry having a relatively higher number of foreign workers or how many managers have recruited people from their own countries. By way of an example, I know a small to medium size insurance outfit with a UK Head Office and international ownership. It has established its Asian office in Singapore more than 10 years ago, dealing with largely Singaporean and Asian customers. From the beginning a large number of employees were expatriates from its UK Head Office who variously ran the office and took charge of various business functions such as claims in underwriting. These expats were on expatriate packages. The people who ran the office heading the various business functions here, were mid-level executives with qualifications and experiences comparable to their Singapore PMET counterparts. In my view, there is no lack of local talent in Singapore who can run this outfit and its various business functions. However, the manpower situation in this company has not changed much till today. I am perplexed to learn that businesses like this can continue to operate in Singapore for such a long time without making any serious effort to have or to increase the Singaporean component at its management and senior levels.”
“Many of these residents, up until early this year, had income as an employee or a self-employed person and they have also been prudent in meeting their financial commitments. But now, many of them have seen their income dropped significantly and some even have no income at all. If their savings could only last them for a few months, servicing their financial commitments would be a big problem. Just as what one resident told me last week, when one has no income, the cost of unsubsidised childcare fees and even the cost of diapers and milk powder would add to their burden. The Government has set out the criteria and drawn a clear boundary when distributing assistance resources to the people. However, it remains our biggest challenge to find ways to help the sandwich class more, especially if the crisis may last for an extended period. From a mid- to long-term perspective, retraining Singaporeans may be helpful. But many of these people will still need some help to tide over the difficult time before they can land a new job. They need a breathing space to allow them to rebound and overcome the plight that they find themselves in now. We know that the difficult times may persist for some period to come. Therefore, is there a possibility to extend the existing schemes and measures to assist more Singaporeans? (In English): Sir, as retrenchment and unemployment increase, we must not be afraid to seize this opportunity to ask ourselves whether the Government should take greater steps to ensure Singaporeans are given fair share in the workplace. As the competition for scarce jobs heats up, re-looking at our Employment Pass policy is necessary. I therefore welcome the announcement revising the minimum salary requirements for Employment Passes and S Passes.”
“While I understand the Government has drawn a line when dispensing assistance, the challenge remains as to how to help more of such people in this sandwiched class, especially if the crisis is going to go on for longer. While efforts at retraining may be helpful in the medium or long term, many still need help to tide them over until they find new jobs. They need the breathing room to pick themselves up to overcome the fall they have just experienced. Can the present schemes be extended to help more such people, especially if these difficult times are here to stay for some time? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to thank the Hougang residents for giving me the opportunity to be their Member of Parliament. I will serve each resident to the best of my ability. Mr Speaker, this is the first time in our history that four Budgets were passed. A large number of businesses and Singaporeans have received help, but many are still facing difficulties. Many have lost their jobs in recent months, and those who still have their jobs worry about losing their job due to declining business in the company they work for. For self-employed persons, the current situation has put pressure on their finances. Jobseekers of all levels and age groups are finding it difficult to get a job. Many residents have sought help under the relief measures, such as the COVID-19 Support Grant and Self-employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), which were rolled out under the four Budgets. However, some have fallen through the cracks as they do not meet the criteria for receiving the assistance.”
“Even as we contest our ideas in this Chamber, we can do so in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, knowing that even if we differ in our ideas, we are in the end One Singapore. I hope the ruling party can start to accept that. Mr Speaker, Sir, 2020 is also the first year in our nation's history where we had not just one Budget but four Budgets. While many businesses and individuals have received assistance through the above, times are still tough for many Singaporeans. Many have lost their jobs in the last few months. Individuals that are still employed see the slow business and fear they will lose their jobs. The self-employed, poor business conditions continue to put a strain on their financial situation. Jobseekers have difficulty securing jobs, be it the fresh graduate looking for their first job or the middle age workers seeking to find a replacement position. Many residents have sought help to appeal for assistance under the various schemes set up by the four Budgets after the GE, for example, COVID-19 grant and SIRS. Not all have succeeded as they fall foul of the criteria. Many have been doing well until early this year earning incomes as either employees or self-employed. They have also been sensible with their financial commitments. However, many of them are now with considerably less income and, in some cases, zero income. Paying for the same financial commitments becomes an issue as they dig deeper into their savings. They get into trouble if their savings are relatively limited and selling their property may not be an option. As a resident told me last week, unsubsidised childcare fees and even the cost of diapers and infant formula all add up to the pressure when one has no income.”
“During the GE, two complaints were made to ELD about our election posters. Part of the first complaint included 13 allegations of my election posters being below the requisite height of 2.2 m. With respect, my experienced volunteers were puzzled as they were all very sure that they had installed the posters at the right height. The complaints were made two days apart. After the first complaint, my volunteers inspected and made the necessary rectifications. Two days later, a second complaint was made which comprised, among other things, a repeat of 12 of the 13 allegations made earlier. This was even more puzzling. During the election, one resident told me that she had witnessed the PAP team pulling down our posters from the original height. She showed me where they allegedly took place and I have no reason to doubt what she said. Separately in the middle of the campaign, the PAP team planted their flags in front of some of my banners, effectively blocking a clean sighting of the contents of my banners. The PAP team also planted many flags around some of our Hougang coffee shops. Back in 2015, I remembered I had a much different experience contesting at Fengshan SMC with the hon Miss Cheryl Chan. I did not have these negative experiences with Miss Chan; it was a fair and honourable fight, full credit to Miss Chan and her team. Given what has happened, will that mean that the PAP should now also expect and allow Workers' Party to do likewise in constituencies where PAP are the incumbents? I should think not, lest a tit-for-tat culture manifests itself and create a divisive political culture that only hurts Singaporeans. Instead, we in this House have a golden opportunity to evolve our politics positively.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by thanking the residents of Hougang for giving me the chance to serve them as their elected Member of Parliament. God willing, I would certainly do my best to serve each and every constituent and to perform all my duties as their Member of Parliament in these difficult and uncertain times that our nation is facing. Even as we are battling the crisis of a generation, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the opportunities that is before us today, and I rise today to speak of seizing the opportunities for our politics, our social safety nets, our manpower policies and our transport policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, 2020 is a watershed year in Singapore politics for many reasons. We have been through a General Election that has many firsts in our political history. A GE with many restrictions and additions imposed on campaigning and a polling process including the first GE without physical rallies. A deeper focus on online campaigns, a much more vocal electorate willing and able to make their voices heard online and not letting the ruling party to impose its narrative on certain election issues. It was notable that many voters rejected gutter politics and embraced the need for a diversity of viewpoints. The President talked about evolving politics in her speech, adding on to the discussion of good politics by her predecessor in his speech in the Opening of the Thirteenth Parliament. Good politics must entail mutual respect between members of the ruling party and other parties, whether in Parliament or back in our constituencies. I myself had some experience with petty and bad politics in this election, which makes me wonder whether the ruling party has gone backwards in time in the in the way its campaign had been conducted in Hougang.”
“As more rail and bus services are resumed in phase 1, 2 and 3, I also hope that the Government take all necessary measures for safe travel and social distancing especially during peak hours. The relaxation of social distancing in our trains since Tuesday is a huge concern. Lack of social distancing on public transport is inconsistent with the authorities’ stringent enforcement efforts in social distancing elsewhere, not to mention a potential Achilles heel in our fight against COVID-19. Finally, President Halimah Yacob was reported to have stated her support for this Fortitude Budget. I wonder whether the President, in arriving at her conclusion to support the draw of $31 billion from our reserves as well as the previous draws from reserves under the Solidarity and Resilience Budgets, had already been advised of the total amount of reserves Singapore has and had taken this into consideration.”
“It is also inconsistent with the stringent enforcement efforts adopted in many other situations with regards to social distancing, for which many people have been fined or given warnings for breaches and the rationale for such enforcement. Finally, President Halimah Yacob was reported to have stated her support for this Fortitude Budget. I wonder whether the President, in arriving at her conclusion to support the draw of $31 billion from our reserves as well as the previous draws from reserves under the previous Budgets, had already been advised of the total amount of reserves Singapore has and had taken this into consideration. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, we may start to see the number of business failures going up in the next few months, leading to more job losses. After May, most businesses will receive 25% wage support and the Fortitude Budget will only increase support by one more month of such wage support. I would like to ask the Minister to extend more support to our SME businesses especially those who are struggling. I also hope that the Government will extend more flexibility to businesses who are cleared to resume business on their premises, to manage their businesses as they see fit as long as they comply with safe distancing and other safe workplace practices as required by the Government. As for the Government’s plans to resume airlinks with China and New Zealand, it is important to resume connection for the benefit of our economy. However, I hope the Government will take all necessary measures to ensure that we will avoid another wave of foreign imported COVID-19 infections.”
“On the other hand, we have had recent experience of significant COVID-19 infections brought about by arriving passengers from abroad, first with the Wuhan tourists in January bringing the first recorded cases and transmissions to Singapore and then later on with some of those returning to Singapore or visitors from abroad around the period of March and April. For the Government's plans to open up air travel in the coming months even with selected countries and pending the eventual introduction of a vaccine for COVID-19, I hope that all necessary measures will be taken to ensure that the reopening will not lead to a resurgence of imported COVID-19 cases. It has been reported that passengers will not be required to serve the 14-days quarantine period and they will be required to undertake swab tests before boarding and after arrival in Singapore. If swab tests are required before boarding a flight to Singapore, how do we ensure all overseas swab test results provided are reliable? For swab tests done on arrival, how will the Government ensure that pending the outcome of the testing, there will not be any risk to any persons with whom the passengers come into contact at the airport, at their selected accommodation and also while being transported to their accommodation? Are there any restrictions on their accommodation for this initial period? Next, on safe travel on public transport. Minister Khaw Boon Wan announced on Monday that rail and bus services will return to pre-circuit breaker levels but indicated that safe social distancing may not be possible. This is disconcerting. Besides being a potential Achilles' heel in our fight against COVID-19, it is inconsistent with social distancing efforts that were carried out previously on trains during the circuit breaker.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, next, I would like to seek an update from the Minister for Manpower in the number of foreign workers who are still currently not allowed to leave their dormitories to go to work. Further, is the Minister able to give a projected estimation of the number of these workers who will be released back to work in each of the next two to three months? I am asking these questions because pending a review of our labour policies in the near future – perhaps after the COVID-19 crisis, particularly on our current unhealthy level of reliance on cheap foreign labour and also the way we house them, in the meantime, we need these workers to be back helping to restart our economy and also at the end of the day, the workers do not ordinarily live and work outside of Singapore and they are part of our community. I am also asking these questions because it touches on how confident the Government is in bringing down infection in the foreign worker dormitories to zero. Next, I want to touch on safe connectivity with the world. Last Friday, the Government announced plans to launch "fast lane" arrangement with COVID-19 measures for essential business, official air travel between Singapore and China in early June, starting with six Chinese cities. Prior to that, the Government had also announced that there will be talks to reopen borders with New Zealand. Quite understandably, we cannot stay unconnected for too long and the opening up of air travel and connection with these and, indeed, other countries will be beneficial to our businesses and economy.”
“To continue with telecommuting per se may not be a viable option for many as telecommuting may suit certain positions but not others, and viable work that is required to be carried out in the office and unsuitability for telecommuting goes beyond the over-simplified description of merely requiring "the use of machinery and specialised terminals or need to complete legal documentation", especially bearing in mind many businesses will as I have highlighted earlier see their wage support under the JSS reduced to 25% from June onwards. Productivity is another area of concern. The Government can be less prescriptive in this area, including any current limitation in the number of workers allowed in the workplace. Let businesses take ownership in managing telecommuting and the extent of telecommuting as appropriate for each individual business and their bottom line. Where any of these employees are required to be in the office or for workers where telecommuting has limited application, the Government can leave the onus on businesses to carry out prescribed safe workplace practices, including having appropriate social distancing and safe seating arrangements, use of SafeEntry, keeping records of staff and visitors to premises, including temperature records and good cleaning practices. Let businesses focus on recovery with more breathing space. I am sure that most businesses will understand that their business operations are subject to closure due to failure in social distancing and safe workplace arrangements or in the event of an actual infection and most will take the necessary protective steps accordingly.”
“Operators were baffled as some of these items have been sold in NTUC FairPrice without restrictions. Thankfully, after the Hougang Member of Parliament sought clarifications, the authorities reached out and rectified the instructions given. In the circuit breaker period, most businesses were required to stop operating in their premises and most employees could not work in their working premises and had to stay at home. Those who could still do some or all of their work at home were the lucky few ones as for many jobs and many businesses, telecommuting is either not an option at all or not an adequate option for a variety of reasons. Many businesses have been looking forward to the resumption of operations in their premises. Yet, it has been somewhat confusing and uncertain for many business owners whose businesses were supposedly cleared for resumption. Minister Chan Chun Sing was reported in the media on 19 May to have said as follows, "Only those who require the use of machinery and specialised terminals or need to complete legal documentation will be able to return to their workplaces. Workers who need infrequent access to the workplace for information or materials can already do so on an existing time-based exemption... The rest of the workers will continue to work from home. This will allow more than three-quarters of our economy to resume their normal operations." These caveats are a challenge to viable resumption for many businesses.”
“The financing support for promising start-ups under the Fortitude Budget may help some new start-ups but are probably irrelevant to the bulk of our existing SME businesses. Beyond the above-mentioned schemes, beyond the foreign work levy waivers and rebates announced in this Fortitude Budget, beyond the assistance from credit loans announced in previous budgets, I am concerned that many SME businesses will still require more assistance if we are to expect them to survive. What are the Government's plans to support them to tide through the months or year ahead beyond what has been announced under the Fortitude Budget? Has the Government factored in any actual draft plans in arriving at the additional $13 billion Contingencies Funds asked for in this Fortitude Budget and if so, whether it can now share such plans with Singaporeans too? I next move on to the challenges during the circuit breaker and the issue of letting businesses open up with less restrictions. The circuit breaker has not been an easy period for many businesses and individuals. Some businesses are baffled why similar businesses did not always result in the same exemptions or the same manpower allocation ratios. Instructions have changed over the weeks for some businesses ranging from meal arrangements for hawkers to types of businesses allowed to be opened or types of merchandise allowed to be sold. In the first few weeks of the circuit breaker, provision shops and minimarts in different Hougang precincts were given different directions. Some were told they were only allowed to sell food. Some were told that they were not allowed to sell mops, brooms, brushes, pails, cleaning liquids, even slippers and limited stationery. Some were allowed to sell with no restrictions.”
“As most businesses stop receiving the 75% wage support coming out from the circuit breaker period, we may start to see a more accurate picture of businesses suffering and insolvency figures for companies rising later this year. The Government has announced that it will provide a cash grant to offset rental costs of SME tenants and also pass a new law to ensure landlords pass on rental support from the Government. This will be welcomed as a small temporary relief of 0.64 of a month's rental for office and industrial properties and 0.8 of a month's rental for commercial properties. Unfortunately, to businesses who cannot open or operate or even for businesses who face a significant drop in their businesses at this time, it may not stave off business and cost pressures in a significant way. In effect, it will be too small an amount to save ailing businesses. Perhaps the assistance by way of JSS and rental support could have been more targeted and not applied to businesses who may not be affected, for example, supermarkets or certain businesses in healthcare, pharmaceutical or IT sectors, just to name a few. In this way, more will be available to the businesses who need them. We should not rely on unaffected businesses to voluntarily return their payouts. The announced support in the Fortitude Budget for digital transformation whether for purpose of boosting e-payments or the digital resilience bonus may help to promote e-payments and to allow safe management practices in COVID-19 settings. While they may assist with business continuity under unique COVID-19 operating conditions, these schemes may be less helpful in generating business or revenue in themselves.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought huge disruptions to global businesses and lives of people from virtually every country in the world. We are in arguably one of the most uncertain times in the history of mankind. No single government has been able to claim from the start they know how to navigate through the challenges posed by COVID-19 and the consequences it has brought to countries, cities, societies and economies. Our Government of 55 years since our Independence is no exception. To that, we have an unprecedented four Budgets in a short period of less than four months. Like everywhere else, the disruptions brought on by COVID-19 have unsettled businesses, lives and governments. This is a sign of things to come in the world, where no government can claim that their past experience will provide useful relevance for the uncertain future. In this brave new world, many heads with different ideas working out consensual solutions for the common good must be preferred. I will start on the issue of support for businesses. In the past two months, under the circuit breaker period, businesses have received support under the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), limited to 75% or up to $4,600 of every salary. Under this Fortitude Budget, for the months ahead, only selected industries such as listed in Tiers 1 and 2 of the JSS will continue to receive wage supplements of up to 75% of each worker's salary. For most businesses, they will only be receiving up to 25% of the first $4,600 of every worker's salary for the remaining payments under the JSS, and this Fortitude Budget will only bring one additional month's payment, limited to 25% of an employee's salary.”
“More importantly, they encourage salvors to carry out salvage work on a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to environment or to prevent or minimise damage to environment even when the salvage work did not result in the ship or cargo being salved. In this way, salvors will not be motivated solely by or pressured merely by the need to achieve a positive salvage in terms of the ship or cargo. This will encourage salvors to place significant consideration on possible damage to environment or to mitigate such damage. This is consistent with environmental concerns of the international community which developed in the last 30 years as a result of the huge damage to environment caused by numerous notorious cases like the Exxon Valdez, the Erika, the MSC Prestige and which also led to changes in the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea and the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.”
“It also provides that services rendered in saving life from a ship is made under the Salvage Convention and not under a previous provision. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill, I mentioned that the English House of Lords had in the case of the "Nagasaki Spirit" identified problems with the wording of Article 14 of the Convention. Essentially, it was decided that the term "fair rate" in Article 14 for environmental salvage only cover expenditure but does not include an element of profit. I said we could address this issue in our law by including an extended definition of "damage to the environment" to any place where the damage may occur and the "fair rate" as referred to in Article 14 is deemed to include an element of profit, just like what South Africa did in their law. I was then disappointed that this was not taken up. However, today, I am happy to note that, in the explanatory note to today's amendment Bill, it has been explained that the existing coverage under section 3(1)(i) has been expanded to, and I quote: "(a) Any claim under the Salvage Convention, including Article 14 of the Convention which relates to the entitlement of a salvor that has carried out salvage operations in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment, to special compensation where such salvage did not result in any vessel or other property being salved; (b) Any claim under a contract for salvage services to carry out any salvage operation to prevent or minimise damage to the environment, even where such salvage operation did not result in any ship, apparel, cargo or wreck being salved." I welcome these inclusions not just because they are consistent with the Salvage Convention.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer in private practice. The High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act sets out the Admiralty jurisdiction of our High Court. A robust admiralty law and regime is always important to a major international maritime hub. Singapore is one of the major maritime hubs in the world alongside Hong Kong and London. One other advantage we have had for many years is that we have one of the busiest ports in the world and many ships stop by for bunkering, transhipment or other services. Many ships also passed by Singapore en route to ports elsewhere in the world. A busy port allows greater possibility of seizing jurisdiction for admiralty claims in our courts. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 14 January 2019, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill and supported the Bill. The Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act brought into force two key maritime conventions, one of which is the International Convention on Salvage of 1989. Today, the proposed amendments to the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (HCAJA) are consequential to the adoption of the Salvage Convention in our laws. The HCAJA provides for the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. It essentially sets out the various maritime claims allowed under our admiralty law and how admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked for any claim and against any ship or any company or even individual. The amendment Bill today proposes to extend the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court to any claim for salvage which falls under the Salvage Convention of 1989 and also any contractual claim for salvage.”