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 15 of 22.
“To focus minds on this agenda, I echo my colleague Leon Perera's call for the Government to set a future deadline for a total fossil fuel vehicles ban, like what the United Kingdom and France have done. Perhaps that is the longer-term approach that Singapore can take to mitigate environmental concerns. New MRT Lines for Tuas South”
“We also need to ensure better monitoring of service quality, including through independently measured service quality experience by customers that could be affected in the PTC's fare review formula, which is currently not the case. The profitability of the Public Transport Operator (PTO) should also be a factor in the PTC's fare review formula. The current productivity extraction factors should be redefined to account for the PTO's profitability. Accounting for profitability will be more equitable for commuters. Retail operations from operators will not be profitable without the infrastructure it operates in. Mandating the level of profits from retail operations to be added to the Railway Sinking Fund and the Rail Infrastructure Fund will move us towards a more equitable development of rail infrastructure in the long term. Similar mechanisms can be done for bus infrastructure, too. Finally, as per my Budget Debate speech, I am concerned as to how the huge increase in diesel excise tax will have implications for our commuters and fares. Most taxis and public buses are still running on diesel, and conversion to hybrid or electric options will still take quite a few more years for taxis and an even longer time for buses. The short-term rebates will likely not be enough to stop operators passing the costs to consumers. Since the Government did not push for the conversion to start earlier, it should give more reasonable timelines for bus and taxi companies to convert to hybrid or electric options fully before applying the tax increase. If the Government truly believes in environmental conservation, it should attend more to the electric vehicle and charging stations availability side of the equation.”
“Since my Adjournment Motion speech on 15 January 2019, train delays are still taking place. For example, a train fault at Marsiling MRT station during the morning rush hour on 22 January 2019, lasted an hour, causing delays for commuters travelling in both directions. Just yesterday, there was a train fault on Downtown Line during the morning rush hour. Mr Chairman, more can still be done to minimise train delays of any lengths. Please allow me to revisit some of the points I made in my earlier Adjournment Motion speech. MKBF has been much talked about. However, these MKBF statistics, while an internationally recognised indicator for rail reliability, does not include delays of not more than five minutes. The Ministry has been silent about keeping track of the many delays of not more than five minutes. Delays, whether long or short, have potential ripple effects that can snowball, meaning that these train delays affect other activities and constitute an economic cost to all involved. Singapore must continue to drive reliability even higher. And as I have argued previously, we need to go beyond the current MKBF metrics in our reliability measurement approach. The Network Capacity Factor (NCF) continues to be of concern. With rail capacity expected to double by 2030, the NCF will, no doubt, be only rising, and help contribute to future rising fare prices. We should review this. We must also pay close attention to the impact of such fare hikes on vulnerable groups. We need to enhance service quality, including better punctuality for trains, as well as more accurate and timely displays of train delays.”
“I have a clarification for Minister Desmond Lee. I thank him for his answers yesterday. Could I just clarify with him regarding the lane usage of the park connectors on the point that I raised, which is, the safety of the park connectors? Specifically, are people allowed to walk on the two lanes with the different markings? I say this because, if that is the case, then really, I would like the Ministry to consider reviewing the lane markings because it is really unsafe when you have people walking on both sides and the personal mobility device users, the cyclists and other users who have to wade through the traffic, and people are not exactly keeping left. Keeping left in such a situation may not really be the correct thing to do as well.”
“I have, however, seen quite a few accidents and many near misses, and a recent accident involving a young child and an e-scooter on a park connector prompted me to raise this again.”
“Thank you, Sir. Is the lane marked with the figure of a person walking only reserved for people on foot? Who is allowed to use the part marked "PCN" or park connector network? Are people on foot allowed on it? If so, is it not dangerous for other users, such as cyclists and personal mobility device (PMD) users, to use it while people are walking on it from both directions? In practice, many people walk on both lanes, and cyclists and PMD users are often left weaving through the traffic on both lanes frequently unsafely, especially during peak periods. The lane marked with the figure of a person walking is narrower than the part marked PCN. It is too narrow for concurrent two-directional use when, say, someone is pushing a stroller or walking a big dog. I first raised this issue last September during the Second Reading of the Land Transport Enforcement Measures Bill. I filed a Parliamentary Question with MND last month asking what actions have been taken to promote the safe use of park connectors by different users, including safe and orderly adherence to the respective lane markings for users on foot and for PCN users. The Minister did not address the issue of adherence to lane markings. So, I would like to ask the Minister today: how are park users supposed to use the park connectors safely according to the lane markings? Will the authority educate the public on the safe usage of park connectors? I use the park connectors almost every day, and I have never seen any signage or advisory on this issue. I have never seen any enforcement being carried out, whether it is illegal usage, for example, speeding by cyclists or PMD users, or cyclists or PMD users using the part marked of the figure of a person walking.”
“Mr Chairman, park connectors are used by people for strolls, walking their babies or pet dogs, or for exercises, such as briskwalking, jogging or cycling. They are also used by people to get to nearby MRT stations or bus stops. Depending on the locations of these park connectors, they can be really busy at certain times of the day or week. Bicycles, e-scooters, mobility scooters, wheelchairs, skatescooters and strollers compete for use with people and pets on foot. As a regular user, I have always been concerned about the safety of park connectors. I am particularly concerned about the uncertainty regarding the appropriate use of the lanes provided on park connectors. Mr Chairman, with your permission, may I show a photograph so that people can have an idea of the lane marking I am going to refer to?”
“Is the suite of measures to retain the local graduate healthcare workers in the industry sufficient? And what are the common reasons for healthcare workers leaving the workforce? Allied Health Professionals”
“Chairman, demographics have only increased the demand for healthcare. In the Government's Healthcare Manpower Plan 2020, released in October 2016, the healthcare services estimated an addition of 30,000 healthcare workers by 2020. With more hospitals and polyclinics coming online in the communities to establish the key infrastructure for delivering healthcare needs to our people, it is time to look at the manpower available to operate and manage both the new and existing infrastructures. A strong local core is important as healthcare needs are better served with cultural understanding. I would like to seek clarification from the Ministry on the plans to build a "strong local workforce" in accordance to the Healthcare Manpower Plan 2020. How is the Ministry monitoring and ensuring that enrolment figures and local graduate figures translate into reinforcements to the nursing manpower, and then retaining the local graduates to meet the long-term plan of building a strong local workforce? I ask as the number of local nursing graduates have been gradually decreasing since a peak of 1,744 graduates in 2012, to 1,479 graduates in 2015. During the COS debate in 2017, Dr Amy Khor stated that the foreign workforce for nursing is 33%. Even as we have learnt that the reduction in services Dependency Ratio Ceiling will not impact healthcare operations, how has this percentage shifted with the introduction of conversion programmes available at the tertiary institutions, such as the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), and the push to increase intakes to the healthcare courses? The retention rate of new healthcare workers will also be a key measure of sustainability of our healthcare operations. What is the attrition rate and average tenure of nurses and other healthcare workers?”
“Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. In recent years, the Government has been encouraging people to sign Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs). LPAs are to be executed before an LPA certificate issuer who can come from three categories of professionals: one, medical professionals who are accredited by the Public Guardian; two, registered psychiatrists; and three, practising lawyers. 6.45 pm I would like to suggest that there should be a clause in the LPA Form 1 where both the donor and donee declare to their best knowledge, at the time of the execution of the LPA Form 1 by the donor: one, whether the donor has any known prior medical condition; and two, whether they are aware of any medical reports issued in respect of the donor, which relates to the issue of whether the donor has the mental capacity to execute the LPA. This will encourage donors and donees to be more forthright and make any relevant declaration before they sign the LPAs. It will also help to protect the LPA issuers in cases where donees may deliberately withhold such information when the LPA issuer is approached to witness the execution of the LPA. Failure to make the relevant disclosure should provide the LPA issuer with some protection in cases where the LPA is disputed by another relative or by way of adverse inferences drawn against, say, any donee with questionable intentions. The qualifications and training of the three types of professionals who are authorised to be LPA certificate issuers are different. Having such a clause will also provide further assistance to the LPA issuers in their assessment whether a donor is in a position to execute the LPA. Good Start in Life for Children”
“Despite such efforts, it may be time for us to acknowledge that self-regulation and internally-driven processes on corporate governance cannot be relied upon solely. The present oversight processes and regime are surely not adequate. In some of these cases, the problems reported seemed to have escaped the attention of their auditors or the problems have not been commented upon by their auditors. In cases where the executive management of a company or its board is aware of serious malfeasance or malpractices or is not aware of such malfeasance but ought to be aware, the buck should never stop anywhere below executive management and its Board. Regulators should be more proactive in taking errant or neglectful directors to account when they fail in their duties and obligations. Can Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo) or the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) not do more? The Government should do more to improve the corporate governance regime of our companies. I would like to propose that an independent task force be convened to evaluate the need for a Government agency to provide oversight on corporate governance standards and to improve audit quality. Such a review is timely and necessary to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect shareholder value and to ensure that the reputation of Singapore companies is not adversely affected by those who have fallen short. Finance as a Force for Good”
“Mr Chairman, last year, the Keppel Offshore and Marine corruption case was discussed in this House. Many people have wondered how sizeable bribe payments were made without oversight from the highest level of management or its Board. Like the Swiber case, we are still waiting for the outcome of the Keppel case. The ongoing problems plaguing Hyflux that have since surfaced remind us that corporate governance issues remain complex and entrenched, with potential market-wide implications. This, in turn, can affect shareholder value and investor confidence. The repercussions of such problems affect many small-scale retail investors. Sixty-year-old Mrs Goh shared with Channel NewsAsia her worries of not being able to recoup her investment in Hyflux. Such worries are not unfounded as recent announcements by Hyflux have indicated that investors like her will have to suffer losses on their investments if a proposed restructuring plan proceeds. In many other cases, it is often the minority investors that lack protection and do not get any help from the regulators or the law when majority shareholders and directors make use of loopholes in regulations to effect transactions at the expense of minority shareholders. Another worry arising from such corporate malfeasance is the impact such incidents can have on the companies' reputation and, by extension, on Singapore’s. Some international commentators have made unflattering remarks on the robustness of Singapore’s regulatory regime and enforcement. I note that MAS has set up a Corporate Governance Advisory Committee (CGAC) as part of the recommendations by the Corporate Governance Council, itself set up in 2018 to review the Code of Corporate Governance.”
“Third, CPF be transformed into a safety net for seniors, that payout eligibility age be lowered to 60 and members be allowed to make partial withdrawals if incapacitated to work for a period of time. Fourth, ageing in place be deepened by promoting the Lease Buyback Scheme to the Merdekas. Fifth, close the gender gap in CPF and other savings for our senior women by increasing the MediSave top-ups for them and the participation incentive for them to enrol in CareShield Life. Ageing with independence is ageing with dignity for our seniors. If we have missed our chances with the Pioneers, we should not miss this opportunity with the Merdekas and all future generations of seniors.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I end my speech in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the MGP appears to be the highlight of this Budget. The generation being honoured truly deserves to be named MG. Not because they happened to be born in the 1950s, just as Singapore fought and got its Independence, beginning with self-rule in 1959, but because this generation was imbued with the spirit of independence and imparted the spirit of independence to future generations. As a generation who embodied and imparted the spirit of independence, the Merdekas should be enabled to age with independence. Ageing with independence is the ability of our seniors to retire on their own, with as little financial dependence as possible on their children, siblings and other family members, and also on the Government and welfare organisations. Except for incidents of serious illness and accidents, seniors ageing with independence will be able to care for themselves or pay for the care that they require to lead purposeful golden years. Indeed, we should work towards this goal for all our seniors, both now and in future. We need and we should calibrate our healthcare, manpower, social pension, housing and gender policies to make sure all our seniors, both now and in future, age with independence. The Workers’ Party has five proposals to enable our seniors to age with independence. First, CHAS auto-enrolment and outpatient subsidies should kick in for all Singaporeans who turn 60 years old to plug the primary care gap in our universal healthcare system. Second, the retirement age be removed, re-employment age raised to 70 and CPF contribution for older workers restored so that our seniors can continue working as long as they can and want to.”
“While our spending on SAF's military equipment and hardware may be important to keep our potential adversaries at bay, our SAF, though led at the highest levels by full-time regulars, is largely a conscript force. While equipment, hardware and spending may be important, for SAF to succeed in its defence objectives, the buy-in from our Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and NSmen is absolutely critical. The Minister has said that National Service has forged a deep understanding in our people that each and every one of us has the duty to defend our nation. This ought to be the case, but it is something we can ill afford to assume or take for granted. It is something we must always continue to strive to achieve and maintain. In my view, it is a constant work-in-progress. If we expect our NSFs and NSmen to take their NS training and call-ups seriously and do their utmost, they will need to be convinced that the training they do is necessary and that both the SAF as well as their commanders, especially senior commanders, not just their NSmen commanders, must be able to command their confidence and respect. Equally, our NSFs and NSmen and, indeed, their families, too, must have absolute confidence in both the SAF and their commanders taking responsibility for their men's welfare and training safety while balancing the equally important objective of operational readiness. This buy-in may be easier said than done and we need to enhance our current efforts. As we are at our Bicentennial, I look to our forefathers over the last 200 years who have displayed tremendous resilience to recover from adversity and build Singapore to what it is today. The hope is that we can continue to ace the tests of resiliency that come our way as a people.”
“In January this year, Mr Andreas Sohmen-Pao, Chairman, Singapore Maritime Foundation, said at the Singapore Maritime Foundation (SMF) New Year Cocktail Reception that "just as shipping fundamentals are starting to look a little better, we see new issues around geopolitics, trade policies, energy and equity market volatility which have us wondering whether the long-awaited improvements will materialise after all." In my Budget Debate speech last year, I said that while I support the push for digitalisation and innovation under the Sea Transport ITM, we must not forget those who may not be able to benefit from this development. Similarly, I asked how many of our SMEs are in a position to compete in the liquified natural gas and offshore renewables identified in the ITM for marine and offshore engineering? Besides these areas, what are the future options they should be prepared for? In these still difficult market conditions, how are our ITMS helping our maritime SMEs beyond the categories which have already been talked about? I hope we can receive an update on these either here or at the COS debate later. There is a saying in Mandarin, "有国才有家". Overcoming tests of economic resiliency may not ultimately help our citizenry if there is no country to begin with. This underlines the importance of our security resiliency. Minister Heng Swee Keat stressed in his speech the importance of keeping safe and secure and justifying that our spending is significant but indispensable. He mentioned that a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) remains a bulwark against threats to our way of life.”
“At MOT's COS Debate last year, the long talked about possibility of a canal across the Kra Isthmus in Thailand was brought up briefly. Indeed, this will be another threat, too. In face of changing leadership in Thailand and the new Asian political landscape, it is uncertain whether the long talked about project can be resisted indefinitely. Besides monitoring developments, are we doing any forward scenario planning and how are we going to deal with such a possibility? In November last year, Malaysia unilaterally attempted to draw a new port limit boundary off Tuas, encroaching on the waters which have long been under the jurisdiction and control of Singapore. The standoff has continued since November 2018, and the Malaysian government vessels have remained in our port waters since. We have not attempted to dislodge them. There was even a collision in those waters between a Malaysian government vessel and a tanker, bringing with it awkward issues of jurisdiction exercised by both port authorities for the investigation of liability. Our port waters, being filled with so many visiting and passing vessels, are already bursting at its seams and being sandwiched between the Malaysian and Indonesian waters. I am concerned how the latest developments may affect our port or ancillary maritime businesses, whether in the short or longer run, if this is not managed and resolved appropriately by our Government in our negotiations with Malaysia.”
“Currently, Singapore has been providing air traffic control services over southern Johor through the Operational Letter of Agreement Between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore Area Control Centres Concerning Singapore Arrivals, Departures and Overflight since 1974. Over our southern border, there has also been media reports of Indonesia demanding to take back its delegated airspace over the Riau Islands Flight Information Region. I am certainly concerned with the possible effects of our neighbours taking back their delegated airspaces on: one, Singapore as a major air hub; two, Singapore’s aerospace industry; and three, the development and future viability of Changi T5 and Changi East. Are our aerospace ambitions sufficiently resilient against such uncertainties and potential shocks? The tests of resilience also extend to our port and maritime sectors. Minister Heng Swee Keat mentioned in his speech that the British decision to declare Singapore a free port plugged us into an emerging network of global trade. Indeed, this is also the bicentennial of the modern port of Singapore. In this bicentennial year, it is noteworthy that over the last 200 years, as different businesses and industries rose and fell, our port has remained one constant key to Singapore's survival and prosperity. It has, in fact, grown from strength to strength, thanks to our strategic location and those who have worked hard over 200 years to keep Singapore port in its position today. Last year, in my Budget Debate speech, I spoke of the challenges to our port and asked how long we can continue to enjoy our advantages. I mentioned of challenges from the Arctic or Northern Sea Route and the Malacca Port. There are other challenges, too.”
“In his Budget speech last week, Minister Heng Swee Keat mentioned that for the development of Changi East, where the new Terminal 5 (T5) will be built, the Changi Airport Group will be taking loans to fund its share of the infrastructure and the Government will provide a guarantee for the Changi East borrowings in order to reduce the cost of borrowing. In last year’s Ministry of Transport's (MOT’s) Committee of Supply (COS) speech, the then Second Minister for Transport Ng Chee Meng shared with this House exciting plans for the proposed building of Changi Airport T5 and the development of Changi East. The Minister spoke of it being, I quote, "a bold move to cement Changi Airport’s position as a premier air hub for the future" and that "it is critical our aviation sector can continue to grow and support the growing needs of our economy". We are told that the scale and complexity of the project are unprecedented: new runways, new terminals, network of tunnels and systems, in short, "a game changer" and "a mega terminal with satellite terminals". The Government even decided that it would foot the majority of the costs of building which will be expected to cost tens of billions of dollars. As of last year, $9 billion has been spent. I cannot agree more that these are exciting developments for our Changi Airport, for Singapore as an international as well as regional air hub, and with good prospects. However, I am concerned whether recent announcements from Malaysia will affect our plans and, more importantly, the future of our air hub. On 4 December 2018, Malaysia announced its intentions to take back its delegated airspace in southern Johor. This means that it will take back its air traffic control service arrangements over Southern Johor.”
“Is this really necessary? Will that lead to fare increase again at some point? Why penalise taxi drivers who do not own the taxis they drive? How soon can the taxi fleet be converted to hybrids or even to the use of fully electric cars for taxis? While environmental concerns are understandable, and while the Minister can talk about some car owners and taxi companies switching to hybrids, the vast majority of existing vehicles using diesel have no other options for an immediate switch at the moment. If the message that the Government wants to send is that diesel is bad for our environment, what are the hybrid or fully electric options that the Government is providing at this moment for users to switch to non-diesel vehicles, especially beyond cars and taxis? If electric or hybrid options are not realistically available en masse now, the tax will just perpetuate the continuing operation of diesel vehicles with the owners paying more into the state coffers. And that does not really help the environment either. The increase in diesel tax will only increase the cost for businesses, especially our SMEs, in an economic climate that is not rosy at all. Whether we are talking about commuters taking public buses, workers or students taking chartered buses to work or school, delivery vehicles sending goods and food, and so on, ultimately, the diesel tax raise will just increase our cost of living, diminishing our economic resiliency at a time where we may ill-afford to. Another part where our resiliency is being tested is in our aerospace industry.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in these uncertain times, we need to build resilience in many ways. Does the Budget this year help to build that resiliency? I would like to touch on a few points in the Budget where it seems our resilience is being tested as we speak. Mr Deputy Speaker, environmental resiliency is a big concern in a world where climate change is increasingly front and centre of policy agendas everywhere. We see elements of this in Budget 2019 where Minister Heng Swee Keat announced that the excise duty on diesel fuel has been increased from $0.10 to $0.20 per litre with immediate effect. While there were positive results, my concerns have remained unchanged from 2017 when the diesel excise tax was introduced. Indeed, my concern is that while we care about environmental resiliency, we may be doing this at the expense of economic resiliency. Diesel is the common fuel for most taxis, public and private buses, delivery vans, pickups, lorries and many other different types of heavy vehicles. The announced road tax rebates for commercial diesel vehicles are not going to completely offset the excise tax payable according to usage. Taxi drivers are already complaining about this. Moreover, such rebates are really short-term measures and, ultimately, operators and owners will face the full effect of the price increase for their businesses. They will have to pass the increases to their customers downstream sooner or later. In short, this diesel tax increase will mean an increase in transportation expenses, which will translate to higher costs for all kinds of businesses in Singapore requiring directly or indirectly transportation. Until all public buses are converted to electric ones, diesel tax increase will raise the operating costs of our Public Transport Operators (PTOs).”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Just one supplementary question. Could the Minister please share, what are the challenges that the Ministry have faced in trying to increase recruitment in this area as a whole?”
“My question relates to what I understand was the blood test that was done at the clinic where Dr Ler was a locum. Brochez did the blood test at the clinic where Dr Ler was a locum. So, I would like to ask the Minister what are the rules preventing doctors from carrying out test for people they know which may put them in a position of compromise or conflict of interest, or question of independence may be raised exactly in the situation like when Brochez went to take a blood test at the clinic where Dr Ler worked? And just to supplement, to this end, whether or not the Minister thinks that we need to strengthen the governance in this particular area.”
“There should be a good balance struck between giving tobacco companies sufficient transition time, but not any longer, so that these companies will not have more time to plan their marketing to work around the limitations of the new packaging requirements. I would also like to ask the Government whether the new rules on plain packaging will be inconsistent with the current practice of allowing people to bring in cigarettes from foreign countries by declaring and paying tariffs for such cigarettes. Does the Government intend to introduce changes to the law to deal with any such inconsistency? Finally, I would also like to know whether and how the new packaging requirements will affect tobacco companies in limiting their flexibility in the use of cigarette sizes as a way of product differentiation or to target certain segments, such as slim size for ladies. Does the Government have any plans to standardise the size of cigarettes being sold? Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“On the other hand, we also read of attempts of tobacco companies in other countries to work around the limitations of plain packaging by, for example, introducing features to maintain product appeal, even when sold in plain packaging, such as resealable inner foil to preserve freshness and innovative filters. Some had tried to have unique packaging which do not appear to meet the minimum size required for health information on the side of packs. It seems that these design tweaks are important for some of these tobacco companies as they appeal to young adults and may lead to increased sales. I also read that in some countries, tobacco companies were given a relatively long time to get rid of their existing stocks and to transit to plain packaging and that some companies also deliberately stalled on the introduction of plain packaging or were not cooperative. In either of these cases, tobacco companies took the opportunity to maximise the publicity of outgoing branding and attempted to desensitise smokers to the change in packaging. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, given the experience of other countries in introducing plain packaging, what are the Government's plans to deter tobacco companies from going around the requirements of the new legislation, such as packaging requirements, or even to deal with any attempts by tobacco companies to delay the introduction of new packaging requirements. I would also like to know what are the Government's plans for the tobacco companies' and retailers' transition to the new packaging. How much time will they have?”
“Mr Speaker, I support the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco. Australia was the first country to introduce plain packaging requirement for tobacco in 2011 though the idea appears to have originated from New Zealand. In recent years, quite a few countries have passed legislation to require plain packaging for tobacco, such as New Zealand, France, the UK, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Canada and Uruguay. Other countries are in the process of doing so. I am glad that Singapore is not far behind in this. According to studies done, the idea of plain packaging is to prevent or reduce any positive association of branding with the consumption of tobacco. It seems that such positive association of branding will attract young people who are new to smoking, even giving such false sense of glamour associated with certain brands. According to the studies, requiring the use of standard unattractive colours, reducing font sizes for brand name, highlighting or magnifying health warnings, are effective in deterring new smokers. MOH's requirement of health warning by way of graphic images will definitely contribute to the deglamourising of smoking for the young. According to reports from Australia, the use of plain packaging seemed to have reduced smoking among young people, as people found that their packaging was not attractive. Some even had the impression cigarettes in plain packaging had tasted worse. Many people picked up smoking when they were young, including, in the case of Singapore, during National Service. Together with the recent increase in the legal age for smoking to eventually 21, I hope that the introduction of plain packaging will, like in Australia or elsewhere, help to discourage more young people from picking up smoking.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. The Minister mentioned that for the commanders of units where there are some safety breaches, there will be a mark on their record. Can I ask the Minister at what level would this be? Would it be at the battalion level, the brigade or the division, formation level? Related to this, I note that the NS training deaths in recent years have involved different vocations, different formation and command. I think in some of these cases where disciplinary actions have been taken, they were taken against junior or mid-level commanders. Moreover, each COI usually does not go beyond the remit of that particular incident in question. So, at what point and at what stage would the Government think that it would be necessary to send a signal to the entire Force when they recognise that there may be a problem at the systemic or a greater level requiring a senior officer, whether at formation, army, SAF or beyond, to take responsibility on this? I say this, bearing in mind some examples from overseas. In 2013, a Taiwanese conscript died after being physically punished by his superiors. Four officers were charged and the Defence Minister was also quick to take responsibility. In 2017, the US Pacific Seventh Fleet commander was relieved of his command after four accidents involving the Seventh Fleet. The reason given was that there was a loss of confidence in his ability to command. At the same time, while each of these four incidents is unique, they cannot be viewed in isolation – that was the reason given. Also, the US Navy went on to say that there will be a deliberate reset of all the ships, focus on navigation, mechanical systems and bridge resource management.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. Just one supplementary question. Pending any future changes to the marking method and the examination method, since the last incident, have any new measures been taken to improve the transportation and delivery of the scripts to UK and back to Singapore. Thank you.”
“Fifth, the Workers' Party urge the Government to commit to major renewals for rail assets every 15 years under the New Rail Financing Framework. In conclusion, it is still too early to pat ourselves on the back on our current progress in our public transportation system. There is still work to do in improving our public transportation system, particularly in providing better commuter experiences in areas, such as reliability, affordability and quality. (In English) In closing, we should refrain on patting ourselves on the back on our current progress in our public transportation system. There is still work to do in improving our public transportation system, particularly in putting our commuters first over other stakeholders in areas, such as reliability, affordability and quality.”
“We noticed that the Government has, indeed, increased investment in rail assets and infrastructures, and there was improvement in MKBF in 2018. However, there is a drawback by focusing on MKBF only, because it means that we are only paying attention to delays of more than five minutes and ignoring those delays that are less than five minutes. Last year, when we reviewed the Fare Review Formula, a new factor was included as one of the considerations, and that is the network capacity which shows the commuter volume and usage rate. This is to better reflect the changes in operating cost. We must pay close attention to the impact of fare hikes on the vulnerable groups. We need to ensure that the public transport system can provide high-quality services, such as physical comfort, timely and accurate information. Here, the Workers’ Party would like to thank all our public transport workers. The public transport system is critical to our economic and social development. We must spare no effort to improve the system. Hence, I would like to put forth five suggestions. First, engage third-party independent bodies to conduct investigations, and use a scorecard system and service quality as part of the Fare Review formula. This will not only incentivise the operators but also monitor the overall reliability and service quality. Second, include the profits of PTOs as one factor in the Fare Review formula. Third, put back a level of profits from retail operations into the Railway Sinking Fund and the Rail Infrastructure Fund. Fourth, adopt a multi-channel, multi-platform and multilingual approach to send out timely and accurate messages about service disruptions.”
“We can consider a multi-channel, multi-platform and multilingual approach to send out broadcast messages on service disruptions, planned early closings and late openings, for example, via electronic notice boards and radio, not unlike what the Ministry of Home Affairs has done with alerts in times of emergencies. Information that is being piped out must be both timely and accurate. Complaints of inaccurate estimated waiting time, information about alternative bus arrangements and even lack of reports of delays by PTOs are common over social media. The Government should work to ensure that such complaints will become a thing of the past. Lastly, while the bulk of the attention is now rightly given to our oldest two lines, we should not forget that our other lines are reaching their age milestones as well. To not repeat past mistakes, the Government must have renewal plans in place. I am, therefore, glad to note that there will be major enhancement and renewal works for the North-East Line starting in 2019. With this in mind, I would like to call on the Government to commit to major renewals for rail assets under the new Rail Financing Framework at every 15-year milestone. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, a convenient and efficient public transport system is critical to our city, people and economy. To become a car-lite, clean, beautiful and liveable city, public transport must be people's prime mode of transportation. To build a convenient and efficient public transport system, reliability, affordability and quality are three important factors. Rail reliability is a continuous work in progress.”
“Hong Kong's experience can offer insights into how Singapore can go about tweaking our Fare Regulation Framework to account for newly proposed factors. It is possible for us to factor in profit via the current Productivity Extraction Factor. This would be to redefine or tweak the current definition to account for the PTOs' profitability. Since Productivity as a factor is a minus, any increase in this factor would lead to a lower fare hike for commuters and will be more equitable for commuters. The extent of profits in an oligopolistic, highly regulated industry with huge barriers to entry like public transport cannot and should not be completely irrelevant to the ability to raise fares. Third, there is room for PTOs to put in more of their profits from their operations into our various funds investing in long-term public transport quality. Currently, 5% of additional fare revenues earned by the PTOs are transferred to the Public Transport Fund to subsidise vulnerable groups. A further step can be taken in this regard. Retail operations in MRT stations will not be profitable without the infrastructure in or around the stations. Mandating a level of profits from retail operations to be added to the Railway Sinking Fund and the Rail Infrastructure Fund will move us towards a more equitable development of our infrastructure. Having benefited from the fleet expansion through the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), a similar profit transfer mechanism can also apply to our bus operators leasing and operating the various bus interchanges. Fourth, timely information is needed about service disruptions and planned early closing announcements. There are still many commuters that are less technologically inclined and may not have the needed apps installed.”
“My second point, also related to the topic of fare review, is that we ought to consider including the profits of PTOs as one factor in the Fare Review formula. The size of operating profits derived from both transport and transport-related lines of business, such as retail operations, should be one of the factors considered in allowing fares to be raised but not the only or predominant factor. To any who may proffer the superficial view that this would create a perverse incentive for PTOs to run their outfits in such a way as to lower profits, so as to be allowed to raise fares, my reply would be that no reasonable profit maximising company would deliberately lower profitability so as to increase the chances of being allowed to raise fares when the linkage between profitability and fare review is small and indirect. My proposal is not without precedent. In Hong Kong’s formula for adjusting their Mass Transit Railway (MTR) fares, the Fare Adjustment Mechanism (FAM), the profits of the MTR Corporation are set within the factor of productivity, where "productivity" is revenue from the corporation's Hong Kong transport operations divided by its expenses relating to its Hong Kong transport operations. In a public consultation in Hong Kong on FAM in 2016, the Hong Kong government noted that (a) a majority of the public submissions requested that the profitability of the MTR Corporation should be reflected in the FAM, (b) when the profit of the MTR Corporation in a particular year reaches a certain level, the MTR Corporation should not increase fares", and (c) a new "profit factor", which reflects the profit made in a particular year, should be added to the existing FAM formula to reduce fare increases.”
“Such independently derived scores can then be directly factored into the Fare Review formula where positive commuter experiences should be rewarded while stagnant or negative commuter experience should be a factor against fare increases. Next, in November 2016, the Government said that PTC had excluded service quality as a factor from the Fare Review formula as the plan was for the Government to, I quote from Minister Khaw Boon Wan in his answer to a Parliamentary Question on 7 November 2016, "regulate and work with the operators independently to improve service levels" and, in doing so, kept the – and I quote from Minister Khaw again – "fare formula relatively straightforward, without the complication of differentiating fare adjustments on account of service quality". But has this really worked as intended? I believe that a direct link between the ability to raise prices and service quality will help to improve the total commuter experience. The inclusion of service quality as perceived by the commuters themselves, realistically measured by an independent body, can help mitigate the risk of operators raising fares as a result of pursuing other goals at the expense of service quality. I should emphasise that service quality should be merely one of the factors and not the only or predominant factor. Some may argue that with the recent improvements we have seen in MKBF, it is unnecessary to link fare review to service quality. However, if MKBF and overall service quality are both truly improving, that is all the more reason why now is a good time to introduce service quality as a factor in the annual Fare Review exercise to ensure that service quality will keep improving and not go backwards in future.”
“Firstly, we can do more to incentivise better monitoring of reliability and service quality by PTOs. Beyond and alongside the traditional measure of MKBF for more than five minutes only, I would suggest having other categories of MKBF for all incidents, such as less than five minutes, between five and 30 minutes and more than 30 minutes. Alongside an expansion of MKBF metrics, we can be more holistic in our approach to measure reliability. Seeing that SMRT is part of the Community of Metros (CoMET), we can also get our rail PTOs to work towards a full implementation of the CoMET scorecard, with disclosure of its results on a yearly basis to the public. Covering areas, such as customer, environment, safety and so on, it is a balanced approach to understand the public transport system and align operator incentives to improve our public transport system beyond just the current singular metric that is operationally focused. LTA and PTC do run surveys to gather feedback. A recent survey for the 2040 Land Transport Master Plan has concluded that commuters prize convenience the most in Singapore’s land transport system, followed by connectivity and fast travel time. However, the survey did not touch on the reliability and affordability of our future public transport. As for service quality, while LTA and PTC do run surveys of customer satisfaction for public transport, the numbers of satisfied commuters look very high compared to a similar survey run by the Institute of Service Excellence (ISE). Perhaps third-party evaluators like ISE which run independent surveys can provide a picture less likely to draw accusations of bias.”
“Beyond that, it will also require timely and accurate information to be delivered by operators on matters of relevance, such as service disruptions, minimising bus bunching, ensuring a comfortable ride and cost-effectively, improving physical comfort, such as improving ventilation on our open-air MRT stations and bus interchanges. We understand that current service quality lapses are penalised with fines, but have these fines exercised a sufficient deterrent effect thus far, including delays of not more than five minutes? There may be scope to include service quality in our fare regulation framework to incentivise public transport operators (PTOs) to work actively on service quality and to maintain a higher standard in these areas. All of the above requires entrenching a service culture among our operators, one that places the commuters at the heart of everything they do. This is, of course, easier said than done. Our public transport personnel need to be understanding when facing problems and take flak from disgruntled commuters with a smile. At this point, I wish to put on record the sincere appreciation we in the Workers' Party have for all public transport workers tirelessly working to ensure that our systems are running smoothly. Many Singaporeans spend a good part of their lives on public transport. As a public good that is inextricably tied to quality of life and is critical for our economy, we must spare no effort in evaluating all transport policies to ensure that we put our commuters first and be class-leading in reliability, affordability and quality. Here, I would like to put forth some suggestions for MOT to consider in improving our public transportation system moving forward.”
“Indeed, the yearly review of transportation fares by the Public Transport Council (PTC) is always closely watched by the public. The 2018 exercise saw the first use of the revised Fare Review Formula with a new component known as the Network Capacity Factor (NCF), and the first fare hike which hit the cap of 4.3% in over three years drew many negative responses from citizens. Even as the Government has argued the case for NCF, there are many other views expressed about this new component. One Straits Times' reader expressed that this factor is akin to taxing commuters twice. Current Nominated Member of Parliament, the hon Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, opined that the factor makes a rise in fares more likely, as capacity will rise faster than ridership in the short term. Straits Times' Senior Transport Correspondent Mr Christopher Tan also pointed out the irony that a negative NCF will imply more crowded buses and trains, an outcome that no commuter wants to see. For now, I note in passing that, even as SMRT and Singapore Bus Services (SBS) Transit are mandated to transfer 5% of the added fare revenue to the Public Transport Fund that funds subsidy vouchers for vulnerable groups, we must maintain a vigilant watch on the impact of such fare hikes on our disadvantaged groups, especially the groups that still prefer cash transactions that saw the highest fare hikes. Perhaps the Minister can share on how the Ministry of Transport (MOT) intends to help such individuals transit to cashless payments. Our public transportation system needs to deliver on quality, most important of which is the punctuality of services and the minimising of all delays.”
“But train delays are not really a thing of the past, as can be seen in the recent train delays late last year and early this year. Let us also not forget that the latest MKBF statistics did not include delays caused by the signalling works which the Singapore MRT (SMRT) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) have reportedly agreed to exclude, nor did it include delays of not more than five minutes. MKBF measures delays of more than five minutes. Notwithstanding their exclusion from the internationally used MKBF benchmark, commuters may still have lingering doubts on the reliability of our MRT system if we completely disregard delays of not more than five minutes. MKBF is also an operational metric that may not truly measure the convenience to passengers, a point made in a 2013 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) International Transport Forum discussion paper entitled "Measuring and Valuing Convenience and Service Quality". The authors also mentioned that measuring delays from a more customer-focused perspective requires appropriate data collected in a sufficient level of detail, such as number of passengers affected and passenger hours delay. Such data do not seem to be within the public sphere currently and will be necessary if we are to move towards a holistic commuter-centric public transport system. In other words, convenience and service quality should be measured and reported. With such big investments as I have mentioned earlier, the affordability of fares is crucial. Even as we are second among 12 cities in affordability from a recent Nanyang Technological University study, our focus should be on Singaporeans and how they are impacted by fare prices.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a good public transportation system is critical to our city, people and economy. With 13 straight years of ridership expansion, Singaporeans are highly dependent on this public good. The Government's drive towards a car-lite society creates a stronger imperative for a seamlessly working public transport system. The feedback from the ground on the most recent Fare Review Exercise has presented us in this House with a timely opportunity to look critically at our public transportation system. Our starting point must be to put our commuters first over other stakeholders and be world-class leaders in areas, such as reliability, affordability and quality. On the issue of rail reliability, not too long ago, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdowns became a familiar, yet unwelcome part of our news cycle. Our bus services were inadequate to fully run parallel to our train systems, and private bus operators had to be called in to help with some of the major breakdowns in the past few years. The Government has more recently injected public funds to nationalise our public transportation assets and infrastructure. Various schemes were rolled out, aimed at expanding and upgrading its public transportation infrastructure. One can only imagine what would have happened if the Government had not chosen to invest and kept to its previous stance of leaving entirely to market forces. With these investments, we have seen Mean Kilometres Between Failures (MKBF) improve from 180,000 train/kilometres (km) to 661,000 train/km between 2017 and the first three quarters of 2018. With a new reliability target of one million train/km by 2020, it may appear that our train reliability is on the up.”
“But the Act differs from the Salvage Convention in two important respects, one of which is that in relation to Article 14 on special compensation, "damage to the environment" is extended 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. Like South Africa, we can avoid wasting our Courts' time to decide on this point. Let me move on to my final point. In practice, most high-value salvage services under the Salvage Convention, are performed on a Lloyds Open Form, or in short, LOF, as it is known in the industry, with an LOF contract with a written arbitration clause exclusively in favour of London arbitration. With Singapore adopting the Salvage Convention, I hope that our Singapore Chamber for Maritime Arbitration (SCMA), with the help of the Singapore Maritime Foundation and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, will be knocking on the right doors to change this unhealthy exclusivity of having the world's salvage cases being decided by arbitration in London and allow the option of Singapore as an alternative for arbitration and governing law on the LOF form. And there is a good precedent for this, too. In 2012, SCMA managed to persuade the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the world largest shipping association and also the world's leading generator of standard maritime contracts, to include Singapore and SCMA's arbitration clause as BIMCO's third standard dispute resolution clause, after London and New York, for world shipping contract form precedents. This is an amazing milestone, not just for SCMA, but also for Singapore law. Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.”
“Unhappy with this decision and interpretation of Article 14, salvors and insurers worked together to develop the SCOPIC Codicil in 2000 to overcome the effect of the court ruling. The optional SCOPIC clauses provide special conditions for remuneration to a salvor for efforts to prevent or minimise environmental damage in relation to the salvage of a vessel. Deputy Speaker, Sir, following the English House of Lords decision in the "Nagasaki Spirit", if the Salvage Convention is introduced in the present form as in this amendment Bill, it is likely, if not probable, that at some point, a Singapore Court will have to make a decision to decide whether to follow the decision of the House of Lords in the "Nagasaki Spirit" in deciding whether or not that the term "fair rate" in Article 14 for environmental salvage includes an element of profit. I am saying this because English common law is traditionally of persuasive authority in our Singapore shipping law, particularly when Singapore law is silent on the interpretation of any specific issue. The English courts had to deal with this issue back in the late 1990s and, 20 years down the road, we are introducing this Convention in our law and we have this benefit of hindsight to have this addressed in our statutes. We can, for example, have a provision to say that, for environmental salvage, fair rate in Article 14 is deemed to include an element of profit. There is at least one precedent for this. South Africa's Wreck and Salvage Act 1996 incorporated the Salvage Convention into their domestic law.”
“If we have reasons for taking time, we can always keep the industry posted of our reasons for such delay. And, of course, this is after consultation with the industry which can be done even while the Convention is being worked out at the IMO level. Let me now move on to two aspects of the Salvage Convention. Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the most well-known modern salvage cases or, more specifically, one of the most well-known cases involving the Salvage Convention, is a very sad collision case involving the oil tanker, the "Nagasaki Spirit" which was operated from Singapore, with the container vessel "Ocean Blessing" in the Malacca Strait in 1992. Pirates had attacked the "Nagasaki Spirit" and then abandoned her without any crew in the bridge of the vessel causing her to collide with the other ship. The "Nagasaki Spirit" was laden with 40,000 tons of crude oil, of which 12,000 tons escaped into the sea and caught fire, engulfing both vessels. The crew from both vessels perished except for two survivors from the "Nagasaki Spirit". Professional salvors agreed to salve the "Nagasaki Spirit" under Lloyds Open Form of 1990, which incorporated Articles 13 and 14 of the Salvage Convention. The salvors managed to put out the fire, salved the remaining cargo, and redelivered the ship to the owners. The salvage claim went all the way to the English House of Lords in 1996. The House of Lords in 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.”
“The original 1996 Protocol limits were in force since May 2004 until 8 June 2015 when the new limits came into force under the tacit acceptance procedure set out in the Protocol. The 2012 amendment to the 1996 Protocol increased its limits further as a result of IMO member states' concern over the insufficient seat of the 1996 Protocol limits arising from cases like the "Pacific Adventurer" case in Queensland, Australia, in 2009. Significantly, for Singapore, the 2012 amendment was brought into force in the UK in 2016 and in Hong Kong on 4 December 2017. So, in my view, this may still put us in some disadvantage relative to the UK and Hong Kong. Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: one, what were the reasons for deciding on the 1996 Protocol only now? And two, why are we not adopting the 2012 amendments instead? Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Salvage Convention which we are adopting today dated back to 1989. It is a relatively dated Convention, well-known to at least two or more generations of maritime lawyers. I am glad we have decided to adopt the Salvage Convention, given that Singapore is one of the busiest ports, and the busy Strait of Singapore and Malacca Strait are in the immediate vicinity and also given that Singapore is a well-known support base for leading salvors in their operations in the Asia Pacific. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope that moving forward, Singapore can be a little more robust when supporting IMO conventions. If we seriously consider ourselves as one of the leading maritime countries, as I think we are, unless we object to a particular IMO convention and have spoken up or expressed our apprehensions at IMO level, we should consider taking the lead in adopting new maritime conventions which we are willing to support.”
“Traditionally, and for many years now, when it comes to limitation of liability cases, such as ship collision claims, shipping lawyers will consider the relative limitation limits as well as any risk or chance of breaking limitation before advising their clients to try and find jurisdiction in countries to set up a limitation fund which may be favourable for them as a matter of limitation limits. Of course, there may be other considerations going beyond the limitation limits, too. The fight is for collision and limitation cases to be commenced in Singapore versus our traditional rival states like England and Hong Kong and, to a lesser extent, Malaysia. Commencing jurisdiction in the Admiralty Courts of Singapore also meant the prospects of more cases for our Admiralty Courts and possibly adding to our jurisprudence. In my view, adopting the Protocol earlier may have provided jurisdictions like England and Hong Kong with one more advantage in a jurisdiction fight between Singapore and these jurisdictions, since the limitation limits under the 1996 Protocol are higher than the 1976 Convention limits as applied in Singapore while the ease of breaking limitation is the same. And lest anyone thinks that we will catch up with everyone with today's amendment, surprise, surprise, we would not. There is more catching up to do. On 12 April 2012, the member states to the 1996 Protocol agreed to an increase of approximately 51% in tonnage limits in their jurisdictions with effect from 8 June 2015 to reflect the changes of monetary values over the period and to cope with inflation. So, for the rest of my speech, I shall refer to this in short as "the 2012 amendment".”
“For the 1976 Convention, it was much, much harder for claimants to break limitation, the requirement for breaking limitation being that the loss must result from a shipowner's personal act or omission, committed with the intention to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result. It has long been acknowledged in the industry that limitation under this requirement is virtually unbreakable. I was personally attracted to the argument that the 1957 Convention would encourage shipowners to strive for a higher standard in return for a lower payout by way of the limitation sum. The differences between the 1976 Convention and the 1996 Protocol are, in my view, much less significant than the differences between the 1976 Convention and the 1957 Convention. The test or the requirement for breaking limitation for the 1976 Convention and 1996 Protocol is essentially the same, just that the limits for the 1996 Protocol are much higher. That being the case, it should also have been a matter of time before we move from the 1976 Convention to the 1996 Protocol which we are going to do so today. In my view, at least two events could have persuaded us to accept the 1996 Protocol earlier. Firstly, the 1996 Protocol came into force in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1998. Secondly, the 1996 Protocol came into force in Hong Kong on 3 May 2015. Even Malaysia adopted the 1996 Protocol before us, in 2014.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer in private practice. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill is a significant Bill to the maritime community in Singapore. It involves three major International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions and at least two major areas in maritime law, namely, the law on salvage and law on limitation of liability. This amendment Bill proposes to bring into force some key maritime conventions of the world: the Salvage Convention of 1989 and the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability to the Maritime Claims (LLMC) of 1976. For the rest of my speech, I shall refer to the latter in short as "the 1996 Protocol". Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have made progress. We have taken about 22 years to adopt the 1996 Protocol. We previously took approximately 29 years to adopt the Convention on Limitation of Liability to the Maritime Claims (LLMC) 1976, which I shall refer to this as "the 1976 Convention" for the rest of my speech. The 1976 Convention was adopted in 2005. Prior to that, for many years, Singapore has applied the 1957 Convention relating to the Limitation of Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships, which I shall refer to as "the 1957 Convention". I have always wondered why Singapore seems to take a relatively longer time to adopt a few of these IMO conventions. The 1976 Convention, the 1996 Protocol and the Salvage Convention are cases in point. When we first adopted the 1976 Convention, I had one reservation and it had to do with the different tests for breaking limitation under the 1957 Convention and the 1976 Convention. For the 1957 Convention, the limitation limits are much lower than those of the 1976 Convention but it is relatively easier to break limitation.”
“Notwithstanding the disciplinary case, the employer had properly terminated the employment contract according to the notice provision of her employment contract and the employee was paid according to what she was due to be paid under the contract. The employer could well have terminated the contract on disciplinary grounds, which would have meant that she would have been paid less upon termination. However, contrary to the clear contractual provisions and despite the disciplinary breaches, the company was told by MOM to provide ex-gratia payment to the employee. I hope that such a case was, indeed, a one-off and, certainly, I believe that such experiences should not be allowed to happen under the new regime where claims for wrongful dismissal will be heard in the EC, including any mediation process. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a step in the right direction and notwithstanding the proposals and concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.”
“Naive or lesser educated workers who may not know how best to protect themselves with written evidence of any agreement with their employers may be disadvantaged by such a system. Employees have no right to have lawyers representing them at the ECT as the law does not allow representation by lawyers. So, this means that lay people may not be fully equipped to ensure that their rights are protected and appropriate arguments are made in their favour. At the same time, I believe that the law does not expressly prohibit companies from using their inhouse legal counsel, who may be a fully qualified lawyer, to represent them at such proceedings. This may arguably not be fair to the employees. It is a possible loophole which the Government may wish to look to address. Perhaps, it may be more appropriate to have a non-legally trained person to represent the employer at a tribunal hearing. Even with legal provisions which may set the ECT apart from, say, the State Courts in hearing its usual cases in the Magistrates and District Courts, the ECT should always apply the law as faithfully as it can, so that both employers and employees alike will be treated fairly and in accordance with their position under the law. Similarly, each party’s legal position under the employment contract must also be fully recognised during any mediation process before that. I remember a few years ago, a client of mine received a complaint of wrongful dismissal lodged by an ex-employee with MOM. This was pre-ECT days. The employee had a record of disciplinary issues, which the employer was able to present to MOM.”
“Next, under the ECA, claims are limited to $20,000 or $30,000 for claimants who go through the Tripartite Mediation Framework or mediation assisted by their unions under the Industrial Relations Act. In the debate at the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill, I also said that "…we should set a higher minimum monetary limit for cases before the ECT. A good indication of a minimum limit should be the median annual income so that employers are less likely to be able to delay a hearing before the tribunal, on the calculation that the employee may not have sufficient resources to pursue the case in the civil Courts. Hence, the claim limit should be raised beyond $20,000. Let it cover claims involving PMETs, too, and PMETs with higher income." With today’s amendment Bill, the EA will now cover PMETs earning more than $4,500. I also understand that the ECT is already hearing claims from PMETs. However, it appears that the limits of $20,000 and $30,000 have not been raised yet. Would the Government consider raising the limits so that more disputes can be heard by the Tribunal? Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, let me touch briefly on the importance of the quality of case handling both at the ECT hearing and the mediation before any such hearing. I have previously spoken against the provision in the Employment Claims Bill which allows the Tribunal not to be bound by rules of evidence in the conduct of any proceedings where I pointed out that the risks of a tribunal failing to consider relevant evidence or making its decision based on arguably wrongful evidence cannot be discounted and this affects the quality of justice.”
“I said that there was no specific tribunal to address issues of unfair dismissal or discrimination. I also said that MOM had in previous years acknowledged that there are such cases. In January 2013, the then Acting Minister for Manpower, said that from 2007 to 2012, MOM received annually an average of 70 cases from female employees who felt they had been unfairly dismissed, out of which 70% involved pregnant women. I had said in my speech then that we should not overlook the issues of unfair dismissal or discrimination but that we should look at the examples of other first-world countries like the United Kingdom (UK) which has been having an employment tribunal handling different types of claims. I also pointed out that employment claims disputes are often mired in the context of contending allegations of breaches of employment contracts. I said the following: "unfair dismissal or discrimination could well be part of the factual matrix in some of these cases. How would the tribunal handle submissions or evidence on such issues? It may well be unfair to parties in such cases for the appointed tribunals to just ignore arguments relating to, for example, unfair dismissal or discrimination. It is naive to pretend that such scenarios will not happen and it may be an injustice to employees or employers if the tribunal were to disregard such issues or evidence completely." As per my speech during the debate for the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill, I think the ECT should also hear claims on discrimination. Let me also cite an example of such discrimination where, anecdotally, some of us may have heard of not infrequently, and that is, a manager of a company preferring to recruit people of the same ethnic origin or nationality.”