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 16 of 22.
“For someone who is employed in a managerial or an executive position, clause 3(b) of the Bill proposes to reduce the prior period of service from 12 to six months before a claim can be lodged. May I ask the Minister why does the Government now think that six months is sufficient and why, for example, it should not be less than three months, which is a common duration for confirmation of employment? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in light of the recent High Court decision in Hasan Shofiqul v China Civil (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 128, would the Minister consider providing a clear statutory definition of what constitutes a "manager" or an "executive" in the EA itself? Any interpretation published elsewhere, including MOM guidelines, is not binding in law in a similar way. It is clear from this case, and also anecdotally, that companies have tried to exploit the lack of a statutory definition to give inflated titles to fit the category of managers and executives when the reality of the job scope may be otherwise. Next, I note that the Bill is proposing to allow wrongful dismissal claims to be handled by the ECT under the ECA. I welcome this move. In my speech at the debate during the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill in August 2016, I had proposed that “the Government should consider having one Tribunal that can hear all types of labour-related employment disputes. This may also take away some cases from the Courts. We can have a Tribunal that hears claims on employment claims, unfair dismissal and discrimination.” In my speech then, I noted that the then Employment Claims Bill only dealt with salary-related claims, not other types of claims or grievances related to work or the workplace.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer who advises on employment law matters and disputes in my practice. It is good news that under this Bill, PMETs earning more than $4,500 a month will be included in the EA. Until now, our employment law has this anomaly whereby the basic law on employment matters for PMETs earning more than $4,500 are not actually provided for in our statutes. Today’s amendments to include the basic employment rights of PMETs in important areas, such as pay, dismissal, leave, sick leave and hospitalisation leave, as well as employment-related claims, is a right step to take. The Bill proposes to introduce a new definition of the word "dismiss". I have some concerns about the part of the definition beginning from "…and includes the resignation of an employee if the employee can show, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee does not resign voluntarily but was forced to do so because of any conduct or omission, or course of conduct or omissions, engaged in by the employer". I do understand and accept the intention to include the situation where an employee may be forced by circumstances created by an employer to resign. However, I still do have a concern over the broad and vague wording of "any conduct or omission" or "course of conduct or omission", which I fear may create ambiguities and uncertainties and may give grounds for abuse by employees who may have left due to bad blood but who might not actually have been so forced to leave by their employers. The Bill also proposes to provide the right for a relevant employee to lodge a claim at the ECT for wrongful dismissal.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answers. I have four supplementary questions. I think Members of the House will agree with me that it is hard enough currently to ensure that all owners of PMDs adhere to the rules for safe use of PMDs and to be considerate to the other footpath users. And earlier this year, a lot of us spoke about this issue at the Committee of Supply debate. I believe we are not out of the woods yet. Would it not exacerbate the present situation if we have a new category of users, namely, hirers? Hirers may even take less ownership of the need to ride responsibly and considerately since they are not the owners. My second supplementary question is: how does the Ministry of Transport (MOT) intend to educate this new group of users, the hirers? My next supplementary question is: what would be the responsibility of commercial-shared PMD service providers in ensuring that their hirers use their PMDs in a safe, responsible manner? And, finally, as the Senior Minister of State has shared about the limited sandbox size, could he share with the House what is this sandbox size expected to be when this shared service is being introduced?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. This question arose out of a request from a resident during house visits. I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State one supplementary question. What measures are being taken, or will be taken, or will the Government consider taking further measures to improve the driving habits of bus drivers, in particular, to reduce or keep down the noise level of buses while they are driving around residential estates?”
“Next, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, with the new regulatory regime, what are the expected costs of compliance by practitioners, and will that lead to increased business costs for companies involved in insolvency proceedings one way or another? Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Bill today represents the final part of a three-phase process to implement the recommendations from the Insolvency Law Review Committee as well as the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an international Centre for Debt Restructuring. In 2015, as part of the first phase of this process, the Bankruptcy Act was amended to create a more rehabilitative discharge framework for bankrupts. Provisions of the existing Bankruptcy Act have now been incorporated into this Bill. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he can provide any statistics for the past few years to show that the intentions and objectives behind the more rehabilitative discharge framework have been achieved or at least that we are well on the way to achieving such objectives? According to data I have found on the MinLaw website for the number of bankruptcy applications for the past two years after the new bankruptcy threshold was increased from $10,000 to $15,000, the number dipped in the first year and then rose again. Has the Government conducted any studies to find out the reasons behind the increase? What is the expected trend that the Government expects in the next two to three years? Finally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State for an update of Singapore's development as an international debt restructuring centre so far. How much success have we had in terms of attracting regional or international restructuring work?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as a practising lawyer whose work includes insolvency-related matters. I support the consolidation into one single piece of legislation existing separate statutes pertaining to personal and corporate insolvency laws and the laws to debt restructuring. I hope this will allow a more unified approach to be taken by the Courts, the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office and the insolvency practitioners. While much of the provisions in this colossal omnibus Bill are taken from existing provisions in the Companies Act and the Bankruptcy Act, the Bill also introduces some new regulations. In particular, the Bill will introduce a new regulatory regime for insolvency practitioners acting as officeholders in insolvency and restructuring proceedings. This follows the practice in some other countries, for example, the United Kingdom and Australia. I have a few questions regarding this new regulatory regime. One, besides having the right qualifications, such as being a solicitor, public or chartered accountant, which are provided in clause 50, and besides the conditions stated in clause 56(b) to (l), what are the other conditions which the Government intends to impose on all insolvency practitioners? I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, whether in the past, say, 10 years or so, there has been instances of misconduct by any insolvency practitioner or where any such practitioner has committed any acts which would have run afoul of the provisions under the new regulatory regime if this had been introduced earlier. Perhaps the Senior Minister of State can elaborate on what are some of these acts or misconduct complained of.”
“For example, such rules must ensure, and I am going to give an extreme example, that expletives written in the demarcated box of one candidate cannot sensibly be regarded as a vote for that candidate. The Government should also review and strengthen the process by which Returning Officers handle any disagreement by candidates or their representatives, their counting agents, in respect of the validity of a voter's mark in a ballot to enhance certainty and transparency.”
“The new provision sets out the considerations and mechanism for decision-making by the Returning Officer in respect of different scenarios. I would like to ask the Minister: why is the Government introducing these new provisions? Why is the Government suddenly concerned about these scenarios provided for in the new provisions? Are the proposed amendments due to any particular incident which happened in recent years? I next move to clause 3. Clause 3 provides for a new section 9B(b) which allows for rejection of claim for eligibility without hearing if the Registration Officer is satisfied that the claimant was not a citizen of Singapore or below 21 at the date prescribed in section 5(4) and the claimant's new address in the claim form is not in an electoral division. I would like to ask the Minister for his clarifications as to what criteria consideration should the Registration Officer adopt to assist him to come to a conclusion on the eligibility of a citizen. And will the basis for a decision be recorded with sufficient details and made available to any such claimant upon demand? Finally, I move to clause 11. Mr Speaker, clause 11 introduced a new sub-section 3AA to section 42 which provides that the voter's mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose and not everywhere. We must always strive to have a clear and unequivocal set of rules for the Returning Officers (ROs) to make the right determination with minimal chances of any dispute by any candidate and with good sense and bereft of any perverse or absurd outcome.”
“Mr Speaker, I agree with what my colleagues, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Leon Perera have said in their speeches. I just have a few clarifications. Firstly, clause 7 amends section 37 to remove the prescription on the types of information to be included in the notices outside polling stations and to leave such details to be prescribed in regulations made under the Act. The parts of section 37 which are to be removed include sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). They list out basic information, such as names of candidates in four different languages to be placed in a notice outside the station with their respective symbols, such names to be listed alphabetically, and so on. The proposed new section 37(2) states, for example, at (a) that the notice must contain such information presented in such form or manner, as may be prescribed. I would like to ask the Minister what exactly will be prescribed in the new regulations, which existing provisions may not be found in the proposed new rules and what will be the new additional provisions? And what are the reasons for the proposed changes to section 37? What was wrong with the existing provision? And was there any particular incident which has given rise to the proposed changes? I next move to clause 19. Clause 19 provides for a new section 56DA and 56DB after the existing section 56D. Section 56DA(7) and (8) and 56DB(1)(a)(b) relates to the postponement and abandonment of polling. Under the new section 56DA, if any ballot box containing votes cast is lost or destroyed, the counting of all votes cast at the affected polling station will be abandoned and the poll at that polling station must be restarted only if it is material to the election result.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I just want to ask the Minister whether he has any answer for the third part of my question, specifically, whether there are any ancillary works or projects relating to or incidental to the HSR which will still continue in these two years?”
“Mr Speaker, just a clarification to what the Senior Minister of State has just said about the right to commence action in Court. Yes, there is such a right to commence action in Court. But if the injuries are not very serious, the legal cost of commencing such an action may not be very worthwhile for parties to commence action in Court. So, in effect, for many people who suffered injuries which are not very serious in such incidents, the right of recourse to the Courts may well be just an academic one.”
“Many elderly people are terrified of getting into accidents with PMDs while they are walking along the void decks or walkways. But how many people actually know what are the requirements prescribed by the law, for example, what devices are allowed to be used on which surfaces, what are the speed limits? Besides online information on the requirements of active mobility statutes, are such information given out at exhibitions and courses alone? Is such information given out in hardcopies to every household? Is such literature in Chinese, Malay and Tamil, in addition to being in English? I feel that there is still much for us to do to achieve a safe riding culture where there is a culture of safe and considerate use of PMDs and bicycles. (In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns that I have raised, I support this Bill.”
“In recent years, as PMDs become more popular, there have been more news about accidents involving errant riders on roads and footpaths. Today, what we are debating is whether we should make registration mandatory for PMD owners. Earlier this year, an elderly man told me that he feels that the cycling regime is not as safe as before. What he meant was, in the earlier years, bicycle owners must register their bicycles. Perhaps some of us may still remember what the licence plates look like. I have spoken before in Parliament that creating a safe riding culture for PMD users and cyclists is very important. I also mentioned that we should do it through two methods. The first is through consistent enforcement of the law, and the second is through adequate public education. To encourage citizens to abide by the law, enforcement must be as consistent as possible so that people understand that they will not get away easily with any infraction. Because we currently have different regulations targeting the different types of PMDs and bicycles, it is important to educate the various types of device users. Is the current scope of public education enough to cover riders of all ages? We now run some public education courses, such as the safe riding courses organised by LTA and Singapore Road Safety Council. However, if riders are unwilling or not required to attend these courses, can they still receive the safe-riding messages? Besides targeting riders, public education should also target pedestrians and footpath users. Our public education must be extensive, so that regardless of age, race and culture, all will have access and not just be limited to those who wish to know about these messages.”
“In the answer to my PQ, Minister Khaw Boon Wan said, amongst other things, that the width limit of 700 mm has been widely publicised by LTA since 2016 through numerous platforms, including videos, posters, banners, and that LTA also works with retailers, interest groups and active mobility patrol volunteers to reach out to the public about this width limit. Participants in the Safe Riding Programme developed by LTA and the Singapore Road Safety Council are also informed of this width limit. It sounds good, but has enough been done? Why are people still surprised to hear the rule change and, worse still, had their bicycles confiscated without knowing the rule change? Besides the cyclists and mobility device owners who must know the changes in law, the pedestrians and other users of footpaths must also know. This will, in turn, enable everyone to assert their rights, promote mutual respect and consideration among different users and, hopefully, in the process, with time, bring about this change in culture. I hope the Government will consider enhancing its efforts in public education beyond its current efforts to reach out to cyclists and PMD users. Mr Speaker, I would like to continue in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in the past two and a half years, there has been various debates in Parliament on the issue of the regulation of PMDs, electric bikes and other bicycles, as well as the introduction of shared use of footpaths by bicycles and PMDs. We passed the AMA in January 2017 which came into force earlier this year. Today, we are back here again with yet more amendments to existing statutes mostly relating to the regulation of PMDs and bicycles as well as shared use of footpaths.”
“So, what is actually the appropriate way for the different users to use the park connector with the lines drawn in this way? To makes things worse or more confusing, between 20 metres (m) and 100 m before a road crossing, the lines and the markings completely disappear. So, what are people supposed to do when the markings disappear? Pretend that there are an invisible line and similar markings? Or we go back to keeping left? If a change is expected for such a short distance, it can be pretty chaotic, too. More importantly, how do the authorities educate the public and ensure that people get used to using such paths according to the law and in a safe and predictable manner? Since the lines and markings were first painted, I have been looking out for advisories to the public placed along the connector. I have yet to see one. Adopting an attitude of ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, it is not going to make things better and safer for all. Those in charge will only be kidding themselves if they do. Last month, I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) to the Minister for Transport asking whether any action is taken to ensure that owners of bicycles with handlebars exceeding 700 millimetres (mm) length are made aware that such bicycles are not allowed on footpaths and walkways, and whether owners are given reasonable opportunity to change the handlebars without their bicycles being impounded immediately when they are found on footpaths or walkways. I filed the PQ after some cyclists wrote to me, citing that many are still unaware of the rule change.”
“We should not be surprised to find out that many still do not know the answers. When new rules requiring members of the public to make changes to their behaviour in public, authorities have to make sure that information reach members of the public and, indeed, different types of path users through various means. It should never just be assumed that people must be taken to know the rule change without ensuring that the communication had been successfully done. I will give a few examples. More than half a year ago, a park connector near my home had its lines redrawn between Kembangan Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station and the East Coast Parkway by Marine Terrace. Most parts of the park connector had a line drawn across one-third of the path. At certain intervals along the connector, on the narrow side, there is a diagramme of a person walking, painted in yellow on the path. The wider side of the path is marked with the initials "PCN". Before these new lines and markings were added, most people and cyclists kept left when heading one way or the other along the connector. Since the redrawing of lines, some who walk along the connector try to stay on the narrower part of the connector. But this part is really narrow and cannot accommodate more than two persons walking abreast. The keep left practice seems to have been abandoned by many and there is often a spillover to the PCN part when people walked past one another in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, many continue to walk on the PCN part, including some with their pet dogs or strollers. Cyclists and PMD users are left wading through the traffic on both sides of the line, frequently unsafely, and not always through any fault of their own, depending on the traffic flow of those walking or jogging.”
“AMAP has recommended to reduce the speed limit for bicycles and PMDs on footpaths from 15 km/h to 10 km/h. This proposal has received much negative response from cyclists. As a cyclist, I can understand why cyclists feel that 10 km/h may be too slow for many cyclists. But let us not also forget that until recently, the law did not even allow bicycles on footpaths but for the fact that this law was never adequately enforced, just as we still often see many cyclists continue to cycle against the traffic or beating the red light. The recent change in law allowing bicycles on footpaths also coincided with the proliferation of PMDs. The poor cycling culture coupled with the lack of enforcement by authorities over the years meant that we need to create from scratch a new culture of safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs. This has proven to be a huge challenge. We need to engender this culture not just amongst cyclists and PMD users, but also pedestrians and other footpath users. For example, how do we get people walking on footpaths or connectors to keep left or keep a proper lookout for other users? Public education is, therefore, paramount for all. Are we doing enough to educate everyone and not just cyclists and PMD users? AMA allows different usage of different paths by different types of bicycles or mobility devices. However, how many people are actually aware of the restrictions for each type of bicycles and mobility devices, and who and what is allowed on which paths? I am not just referring to cyclists or mobility device owners. Walk around a Housing and Development Board (HDB) estate or a public park, and try asking residents or park users what are the new rules under the AMA, and who and what are allowed on which paths.”
“" PMAs were previously the preferred legislative synonyms for motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters. Two years down the road, I still see motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters on the roads. Near where I live, there is an elderly uncle who often rides his mobility scooter on the roads. He rides ever so slowly along the road as I wait patiently behind him in my car or sliding to the left to let him pass by. I feel so stressed for him, while he rides by calmly and oblivious to the risks which I see. While I agree that motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters should not be allowed on roads for safety reasons, I am quite concerned that, many times, such users may be forced to use the roads because of the lack of access or constraints in access on supposed pavements or footpaths along the road. We should also take care that when there are roadworks or curb-side works, access must not be limited or be blocked at all. Will contractors be required by authorities to provide alternative off-road access for motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters? I would also like to ask the Government that in the case where a motorised wheelchair or mobility scooter user can prove that he was forced to access a road because the pavement or footpath has been obstructed in any way, will that be a complete defence and will he be let off? And finally, what are the authorities' efforts to ensure that access on footpath or pavement remains unobstructed? Mr Speaker, I had previously said in Parliament that we need to create a culture of legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs, and that consistent enforcement and adequate public education are two key elements required for creating such a culture.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify the exact position under this provision. Next, this Bill seems to have put the presumptive onus and burden of proof on owners in respect of their devices' technical compliance with the requirements of the law. May I ask the Senior Minister of State what recourse is available for owners who have purchased their devices from errant sellers who have willfully misrepresented the device specifications? Also, are there any agencies or appointed operators or even fact-checking websites or apps which owners can approach to seek verification of technical compliance of their devices prior to purchase? This Bill does not consider providing an age restriction to the use of PMDs. Two months ago, I filed a Parliamentary Question on this. But MOT has rejected my suggestion for the use of PMDs to be restricted to those who are 18 and above. May I ask the Senior Minister of State, in practice, how differently does the law treat an underaged PMD owner or user in breach of any existing provisions of the AMA, and of the Bill today? Does or will the underaged offender receive the same punishment as an adult offender? The Bill makes it an offence under the RTA to drive a motorised wheelchair or mobility scooter on the road. While the illegal use of PMDs on roads may have grabbed all the media attention, the use of motorised wheelchair or mobility scooters on roads is not an infrequent occurrence. During the COS debates in 2016, I said in my MOT cut, and I quote, "for the suggested ban on use of PMAs on roads to work effectively and reasonably, there must be user-friendly pavements on every road, otherwise, such a ban will not be practical or fair.”
“Mr Speaker, earlier this year, an elderly gentleman by the name of Wu Kher said to me that our regime for safe cycling has declined, pointing to the fact that, in the earlier years, it was mandatory for bicycle owners to register their bicycles. The irony of what this elderly man had said was not lost on me at all. Last year, electric bikes, otherwise known in our statutes as PABs, are required to be registered and every legal e-bike must have a number plate. Today, we are asked to pass a Bill requiring ownership of PMDs to be registered. I hope it will encourage all owners to adopt a more responsible and safe usage of their PMDs, though the extent to it remains to be seen. I read from the Explanatory Statement to the Bill that if the registration of a registrable PMD or PAB has been cancelled, the person last registered will be treated as the owner. This seems to differ from vehicle registration and it seems to be at odds with property law principles. If the previous registered owner sells the PMD to another person, who registered it under his name, but for some reason, the registration was cancelled, it would be odd and illogical for the previous owner to be regarded as the owner again by virtue of this law alone. He would have been paid a fair price by the new owner or buyer. It may also not be fair if such previous owner has to bear any legal consequences arising from the use of the PMD which has nothing to do with him. Also, assuming that a person has sold his PMD to another person, can the owner deregister himself unilaterally and after that legally, he would have nothing to do with what the new owner does with the PMD? Or does the owner have to make sure that the new owner registers himself? That would not seem to be practicable again.”
“In recent years, insolvency cases involving internationally well-known companies have been started or filed in our Courts for various reasons, such as insolvency protection and debt restructuring. They include companies in shipping or oil and offshore industries, too. The proposed amendments will bring about some certainty to the interpretation of section 131(f) and 131(g) of the Companies Act, while the amendments themselves will not necessarily put any party in a position of great disadvantage. Mr Speaker, for the above reasons, I support this amendment Bill. The Court of Appeal was certainly right to recommend the proposed changes to Parliament.”
“If the law is not amended, businesses may be compelled to register charges for such liens, and failure to do so may even lead to penalties under the Companies Act. Besides being impractical, it is inconvenient and the legal fees for registration are unnecessary expenses for businesses. Notwithstanding the recent judicial pronouncements of there being a need to register a charge under section 131(3)(f) or (g), the reality is that the practice of registering was never part of our commercial landscape in Singapore. It is notable that the Court of Appeal made comparisons with the corresponding laws in the United Kingdom (UK) and Hong Kong, respectively. I would suggest that the comparisons with the UK and Hong Kong are not merely of jurisprudential significance. Whether as admiralty jurisdictions, legal or maritime centres, England and Hong Kong are arguably two of Singapore's closest rivals. While it may be a slight exaggeration to say that maintaining the status quo will put Singapore in a distinct disadvantage compared to Hong Kong, it is important that we continue to make our maritime and legal hub as competitive as possible and minimise or avoid any unnecessary shortfalls that make us less sensitive to the views and needs of the business community. The amendments should, in my view, now place our law on shipowners’ lien in a better position than Hong Kong or the UK. The proposed amendments under this amendment Bill are also timely in that Singapore is also aiming to be one of the leading international debt restructuring centres in Asia, especially with the amendments to the Companies Act provisions brought in May 2017 with the introduction of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.”
“The decision in July 2017 last year generated a strong reaction from the maritime community in Singapore. Although it can be said that the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court are not surprising given that they are, in some respects, consistent with English law on the registrability of liens on sub-hire and sub-freights, the recent decisions are nonetheless the first local judicial pronouncements on the effect of the non-registration of such liens. The shipping community, led by the Singapore Shipping Association, bemoaned the “onerous” and “administrative burden” of having to register all such liens and pleaded for a “statutory carve out”. The reaction from the shipping community is perhaps hardly surprising, at least to those in the community. And I am in total agreement. Such a lien clause is very common in standard charterparties all over the world, not just in bareboat charterparties which are the subject of the Diablo case, but also in time and even voyage charterparties; in many of these commonly used charterparty forms, we will use a variant of a lien clause allowing lien over hire, freight, sub-freights or sub-hire. Parties all over the world enter into charterparties on an everyday basis. Singapore is, of course, a major maritime hub in the world with many shipping businesses setting up companies, subsidiaries and operations in Singapore. Moreover, many charterparties and fixture notes have Singapore or Singapore law as part of their jurisdiction or arbitration or governing law clauses. I agree that it is wholly impractical to require all liens for freights, hire, sub-freights or sub-hire to be registered as charges under sections 131(f) or (g) of the Companies Act.”
“Mr Speaker, I first declare my interest as a shipping lawyer. Mr Speaker, the main thrust of today's Companies (Amendment) Bill provides that a Shipowner's Lien for bill of lading freight, sub-freights, sub-hires or for any amount due under any charter, no longer requires registration under section 131 of the Companies Act. Under the proposed amendments, a shipowner includes a registered owner, a disponent owner or a bareboat charterer of a ship. Simply put, the shipowner can intercept income due to charterers in the form of bill of lading freight, sub-freight under a voyage charter or sub-hire under a sub-charter. Today's Bill for the proposed amendment of section 131 of the Companies Act stems from the recent Court of Appeal case of Diablo Fortune v Duncan Lindsay. The Court of Appeal, with five judges hearing the appeal, affirmed the decision of Judicial Commissioner Audrey Lim in the High Court below. Diablo Fortune Inc are the owners of the cargo vessel V8 Stealth II. Their bareboat chartered the vessel to Siva Ships International Pte Ltd. The charterers entered into a pooling agreement with another company by which the charterers earned charterhire. The charterers then went into liquidation and the owners sought to enforce a lien over subhire pursuant to clause 18 of the bareboat charterparty by serving a lien on the pool. The pool withheld hire payments to the charterer. The liquidators applied to the High Court directing payment of the charterhire to the charterer. In the High Court decision below, the hon Judicial Commissioner held that the lien over sub-hire created by a charterparty was registrable pursuant to section 131(3)(f) of the Companies Act as a book debt or pursuant to section 131(g) as a floating charge.”
“I thank the Minister for the Ministerial Statement with many details of the COI Report. I would like to ask the Minister – not sure if I heard correctly – what was the COI's finding with respect to the detection of the physical status of the soldier CFC Dave Lee during the fast march itself. Did any of his colleagues or instructors detect or spot that he was not coping well during the training? My second question is: would the SAF look into the possibility of training commanders for early detection of soldiers who are not coping well during an extreme, strenuous exercise like the fast march so that they can be pulled out before the completion of the fast march?”
“I also hope that suitable training and guidance will always be given to all tribunal magistrates, including those who have not had prior or adequate civil litigation experience. Next, may I also suggest that the administrators of the Tribunals consider compiling and make available to the public its decisions or judgments, not unlike the current reported decisions for State and High Courts available on LawNet. Making such decisions and judgments available to the public will encourage better and consistent decisions and judgments. Justice must always be seen to be done in the eyes of all users of the Tribunals, whether they are claimants or respondents. I hope that all tribunal magistrates will exercise empathy and patience when they deal with the claimants or respondents directly. I hope that the Tribunals will always aim to ensure that all users of the Tribunals will go away feeling that they have been heard fairly and have a fair day in Court. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Next, the Bill also proposes to increase the time bar for claims under the Tribunals from one to two years. I agree with the Ministry’s rationale to align the time bar for claims under CPFTA and also claims under other tribunals, such as the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, as well as to allow more time for parties to explore methods to resolve their dispute before bringing the claim to the Tribunals. I believe that the time bar of one year is too short anyway. Hence, I welcome the extended time bar of two years. Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the introduction of various new measures to facilitate the speedy and effective resolution of cases, measures to enhance the powers of the tribunal, such as allowing and requiring the tribunal to adopt a judge-like approach in identifying relevant issues, ensuring relevant evidence is being adduced, making suitable orders, and even requiring parties to attend mediation as well as granting costs orders. I hope all these measures will serve to enhance the quality of justice at the Tribunals. But I also hope that, in their attempt to process cases more efficiently and effectively, the Tribunals and its staff and magistrates will always be motivated to balance the imperative of efficiency with justice and public service. This is all the more so as, unlike in the State Courts or the High Courts, lawyers are not allowed to represent members of the public using the Tribunals. All claimants and respondents will handle their own claims and deal directly with both tribunal magistrates and staff. Notwithstanding the relatively lower quantum of claims being decided at the Tribunals, I hope that the Tribunals will always ensure that both the quality of justice as well as service quality should always be maintained at a high level.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I first declare my interest as a practising lawyer. This Bill proposes to introduce various important amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, as well as to enhance the powers of the Tribunals to facilitate a more efficient and effective resolution of cases. The Workers’ Party supports the proposed amendments in this Bill. This Bill proposes, first, to raise the default monetary limit of the Tribunals to $20,000, and the upper limit to $30,000 with the consent of all parties to a dispute. The Bill also proposes to expand the Tribunals' subject-matter jurisdiction to include hire purchase claims under CPFTA. The raising of the monetary limits will allow more claims to have access to the Tribunals. This is good for many people, particularly for the man in the street, who either may not afford the usual legal fees for the same claim to be tried in Courts, or may find the fees not worthwhile, given the quantum of their claim. The raising of the monetary limits will allow people more options of bringing claims up to $20,000 or $30,000 to the Tribunals, instead of filing such claims in the Magistrates' Courts. Together with new hire purchase claims also under the Tribunals, the increase in the monetary limitation may hopefully reduce the caseload in the Magistrates' Courts and enhance the handling of cases in the Magistrates' Courts. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: what is the projected increase in the caseload which the Government is expecting from the new jurisdictional limits? Two, what, if any, is the expected increase in the number of tribunal magistrates to deal with any increase in the caseload, and when will the capacity increase for tribunal magistrates as well as administrative staff be put in place?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarifications on some of the points I have raised. On the point I raised about the aircraft commander and the air marshal, I am not sure that the Senior Minister of State understood my question correctly. I think I was raising this possibility that there is an element of conflict between the aircraft commander and the air marshal because section 5(3B) stopped short of stating that the air marshal must always defer to the ultimate authority and instruction of the aircraft commander. So, I am raising the concern and the question whether there will be complications if there is a conflict or disagreement between the two persons. There is one other question I would like the Senior Minister of State to confirm. Does he foresee there will be any further changes to include further offences which are listed in ICAO's Circular 288 which may not currently be in our Penal Code? The other question I would like to ask is: how would Singapore deal with the situation when the states of landing – assuming Singapore is the state of landing – the state of landing, the state of the operator or the state of registration, more than one state wants to exercise jurisdiction, how would Singapore, as a state of landing, for example, deal with a situation like this?”
“Has there been some apprehension, perhaps shared by the many countries which have yet to ratify the Protocol? Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“So, under this provision, it seems that the aircraft commander does not need to seek the help of air marshals onboard if he does not wish or, presumably, when he thinks that it is not necessary. On the other hand, the new proposed section 5(3B) under this Bill also allows an air marshal onboard to take any measures against any person onboard the aircraft without being authorised by the aircraft commander when he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action is necessary. Under the existing unamended section 5, the aircraft commander appears to have the ultimate command or responsibility to take suitable actions during the flight. The above-mentioned new provisions may well give rise to an element of conflict leading possibly to both the aircraft commander and the air marshal taking independent actions without coordination. The new provisions introduced in Article 6 by the Montreal Protocol and in the proposed amended section 5(3B) stopped short of stating that the air marshals must always defer to the ultimate authority and instruction of the aircraft commander. Will there also be complications affecting states assuming jurisdiction in cases where there is a conflict or disagreement between the aircraft commander and the air marshal? Next, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether our existing laws, together with the proposed amendments and inclusions under this Bill, are adequate to include all offences listed in the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO's) Circular 288? Do we foresee any further changes required to adopt all offences in Circular 288? Finally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State why Singapore has taken four years to introduce this Bill.”
“I, therefore, support the adoption of the provisions to the Montreal Protocol of 2014 giving Singapore the jurisdiction as a state of landing or the state of the operator to take punitive action against unruly passengers who may have committed offences against penal law or carried out acts which may jeopardise the safety of an aircraft or of persons or property in such aircraft, or which jeopardise good order and discipline on board. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to share with this House how many cases of unruly passengers Singapore has experienced in the past five years, whether for inbound or outbound flights. What are the nationalities of such unruly passengers? How many of these cases would have come under the provisions of this amendment Bill had such provisions been in force earlier? Next, while I suppose after the passing of this Bill, Singapore may be able to seize jurisdiction for applicable cases, as the state of landing or as the state of the operator, how would Singapore resolve the conflicts of another jurisdiction wanting to exercise jurisdiction, for example, Singapore can be a state of landing while the state of registration or the state of the operator is another country who also wants to exercise jurisdiction? The Montreal Protocol introduced in the Tokyo Convention the concept of in-flight security officers. Under this Bill, we call such "in-flight security officers" by the name "air marshals". The new section 5(3)(b) under this Bill provides that the aircraft commander may, "request or authorise but not require any ... air marshal to render assistance in restraining any person".”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Tokyo Convention (Amendment) Bill seeks to introduce new laws dealing with unruly passengers on board aircraft arising from the Montreal Protocol of 2014 to the Tokyo Convention. The incidence of unruly passengers on board aircraft continues to be an important concern in the industry as the number of passenger flights around the world are increasing each year, and, especially with the proliferation of budget airlines all over the world, the safety of passengers and crew on board all passenger aircraft should remain a priority. We have read news of unruly passengers causing flight delays, flight cancellations and even unscheduled landings, not to mention distress and annoyance among crew and passengers on board flights having to put up with unruly behaviour. The lives and safety of passengers and crew should not be easily put at risk or be endangered by any unruly passenger. Neither should crew and passengers have to put up with unnecessary delays or inconvenience caused by unruly and unreasonable passengers, unreasonably or wilfully uncompliant with the instructions of the flight commander, that is, the captain, or their crew. Having good and enforceable laws, as well as solid enforcement procedures, in this respect may also assist in dealing with, or preventing disruptions by passengers with terrorism-related intentions.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about the new regulations, the registration requirement, and I agree that that may deter reckless riding and illegal riding to some extent. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what are the current plans to improve better riding etiquette, inconsiderate use of PMD because inconsiderate uses may not amount to an offence? So, a lot of such inconsiderate uses on an everyday basis are not really captured as such. But I think there is a public relations aspect to this, and I think a lot of, especially pedestrians on the ground, are concerned about this. Moving forward, what are the Government's plans to improve this aspect?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. In respect of service standard in NCF, would the Minister consider incorporating a measure of train reliability standard in order to incentivise the real operators to improve the reliability all round as well as also to manage commuters' expectation? After all, we hear a lot on the ground that there is expansion and there are supposed to be improved services. The survey shows something. But on the ground, people are still complaining about frequent delays.”
“Mr Speaker, I have just one supplementary question. Does the Government envisage that there is a need to increase the number of professionals working in the special needs sector and, if so, what are the plans in the next five years? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, it is not only now that we realise that there has been an increase. In fact, a few years ago, we had anticipated this and the number of professionals in the social service sector has increased significantly for some, depending on the sub-sector. And we are mindful that the numbers or the needs require this increase. As such, we recognise this and we have been doing that. I assure Members that we are keeping a close watch on how we can, one, care for people; and two, make sure that we provide the necessary framework, infrastructure as well as manpower to ensure that their needs are met sufficiently.”
“I have two supplementary questions but not relating to 3SG Gavin. One, in respect of the answer that the Minister has just given to a previous question, the Minister mentioned about empathy training, possibly during Command School at OCS or SISPEC. May I also ask the Minister if he would consider having further post-commission training, meaning for junior commanders, after they have received their command rank? The basis for my question is that I think those of us who have done National Service will also realise that, for some commanders, you may not see this in OCS or in SISPEC, but after they have gotten the rank, somehow the rank got to them. And that is where the abuse of power, the tendency for abuse may happen. Perhaps in very small numbers, but, nonetheless, this is something that the Minister may wish to consider looking into. My second question relates to the Minister's information just now where you mentioned that the second review panel will be – correct me if I have heard you wrongly – given access to the COI reports. Would the Minister also consider that on other training safety-related reports, perhaps of lesser importance, let us say an intra-SAF Board of Inquiry (BOI) report relating to some accidents or incidents which may not even involve any actual casualty but, nonetheless, relating to training safety, would this panel be given access to such reports so that they have a good overview of the kind of incidents that may happen in the SAF and to be able to provide suggestions for improvement?”
“I spoke of my concerns for the shipping industry in my speech during the Budget Debate this year and I would like to reiterate my call for the Government to focus on helping our local shipping SMEs, as opposed to Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) or the foreign-owned businesses operating in and from Singapore. Our maritime business community consists of many more local SMEs up and down the value chain beyond ships and offshore building and port management. How can we help those who may not be able to benefit from the current focus on autonomous systems, robotics, data analytics as well as digitalisation under the current Sea Transport ITM or, for that matter, under any other ITMs? And how can we encourage SMEs to think beyond traditional categories of maritime businesses to come up with products and services that straddle across or beyond traditional categorisations? Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.”
“CORSIA is the carbon offset scheme; it does not mean zero carbon emissions from the aircraft plying Changi. With a bigger airport and more flights, there will be more emissions and, hence, more pollution from the various toxic emissions. I also asked for the present levels of various pollutants as well as the projected levels when Terminal 5 opens. According to the Minister, the Ministry has not done any study on air or noise pollution and will consider my proposal of doing a study, especially on air pollution. Environmental pollution is a key consideration when building airports or airport extensions or runways in many developed countries. The Government should ensure that the airport extension, together with projected increase in flights, will not lead to an increase in air or noise pollution affecting residents living nearby, say, within a radius of at least 10 km to 15 km of the airport. That will hit the estates I mentioned plus, I believe, Bedok, East Coast and even parts of Marine Parade and beyond. I urge the Government to carry out such a study soon and, in fact, to monitor the pollution levels regularly on a long-term basis as our airport and flights may continue to grow in the coming years. A metropolis that embraces the future must be one where developments and progress must go hand in hand with good management of our environment. In closing, let me end with some brief words on the third category of transport – maritime. And I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer and a member of the maritime community.”
“The President said that we will invest in infrastructure to keep Singapore as one of the best-connected cities in Asia, citing our Changi Airport expansion as an example. The Changi Airport expansion is exciting and promises much about staying ahead as an international and regional air hub. At the same time, the President also said that we want to live in a world-class city and an endearing home that is clean, green and efficient, fun and connected. Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Mr Masagos said in the Ministry's Addendum to the President's Address that since Independence, we have pursued our vision of a liveable and sustainable Singapore, balancing environmental protection and economic growth. Singapore is a small city. Our homes, our living spaces and our green spaces are never far from our offices, industrial premises, ports and airport. For example, within a few kilometres from Changi Airport, you will start hitting private residential estates, condos and HDB estates in Changi, Tampines, Simei, Pasir Ris. The popular Changi Beach is literally just at the doorstep of one of the airport's runways. Recently, I raised some concerns in Parliament about noise and air pollution arising from expansion of Changi Airport and the possible impact of Singaporeans near the airport and on the eastern and north-eastern parts of Singapore, pointing to the aircraft as well as vehicular traffic emissions associated with the airport. I mentioned that the toxic emissions associated with airports included various pollutants, including carbon emissions, which were the subject of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), a scheme implemented under the Aviation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill in March this year.”
“We need to evaluate how effective our public education efforts in promoting legal, safe and considerate use of PMDs or bicycles are to the majority of our people. Public education is important and must go hand in hand with consistent enforcement. At the moment, education only reaches directly to limited groups of people, for example, students, offenders, foreign workers or people who voluntarily sign up for such classes or read up on such literature online. Ultimately, how is the Government going to ensure that the ethos of safe riding and good riding etiquette can be understood by all, regardless of riders or pedestrians? Riders and pedestrians seem to have the mindset that they each have the right of way in footpaths and walkways and even on public connectors. To change this mindset, there is more for us to do to educate the public beyond what is being done. Does the Government plan to expand its public education programme to reach out to the masses beyond its current efforts? I will end this part of my speech with a suggestion to the Government to improve the situation for safe and considerate use of PMDs, in particular. Will the Government consider lowering the speed limit for PMDs to 15 kilometres (km) per hour across all surfaces? Currently, PMDs are allowed up to a maximum of 25 km per hour on park connectors. I think this is still an unsafe speed and I would invite the Minister to take a walk with me along a busy park connector and experience whether it is safe for PMDs to travel at 25 km per hour in a park connector, especially during peak periods. Moreover, many PMD users exceed 15 km per hour even on footpaths.”
“Think of the accidents or near-misses involving PMD users and pedestrians, think of people walking along footpaths or walkways being startled by inconsiderate cyclists or PMD users, think of cyclists not stopping at red lights or cycling against the traffic, think of PMDs using roads illegally. In recent months, we have seen much publicity of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) taking various enforcement actions against errant use of PMDs, and e-scooters being impounded for illegal use on roads or illegal bicycles being impounded. While enforcement is important, it alone may have limited effect in creating a good riding culture. Only people who are caught are punished and sent for safe-riding courses. But what about those who ride dangerously? Or in breach of our laws and get away with it as our law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere? Or those who ride inconsiderately, frightening or inconveniencing others, for example riding close to pedestrians or not giving way to those in need like the elderly or those with mobility issues? Similarly, the Government's plans to register all PMD users will not automatically create a good riding culture among users. Like current enforcement efforts, it may, to some extent, deter reckless and illegal riding at best. Deterring reckless or illegal riding alone can be our only end-goals. Enforcement has to be consistent. Inconsistent enforcement against errant cyclists remains an issue. We still see, for example, cyclists cycling against the flow of traffic or beating red lights, but there is relatively little enforcement compared to PMDs. With the proliferation of shared bicycles and by allowing shared use of footpaths and walkways, we need to sort out our poor cycling culture, too.”
“I hope that we can start the building and operation of the HSR and RTS with the right focus on sound design, engineering and operating system as well as a good maintenance regime supported by a professional and well-trained staff working with the right corporate culture and avoid the design and maintenance issues we have seen with our MRT system and trains. The drive towards a Car-Lite city and Active Mobility for the First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity for public transport has led to the Government's focus on the use of shared bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs). The new Active Mobility Act also allows PMD users and cyclists shared use of footpaths which was previously prohibited. The popular use of shared bicycles brought with it more problems as we have heard in the House in the past year. If the Government truly thinks that a Car-Lite city as well as First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity are important for the future of our transportation system and will, in the President's words, "play an important part in a metropolis that embraces the future", I feel that this is a critical moment for us to get it right as far as the safe and proper operation of transport modes for First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity is concerned. If the Government wants to promote PMDs and bicycles for First-and-Last-Mile Connectivity, it needs to really focus on building a good riding culture, something that is really lacking at the moment. But we have to go about setting right this riding culture now and, if not, we may miss the boat again. That is why I am raising this issue here today.”
“As our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network increases with the building of new MRT lines, such as the Thomson-East Coast Line, Jurong Region Line and Cross-Island Line, I hope that the Government will, for example, be learning from our experience with the North-South and East-West Lines and plan for a system with not merely sufficient capacity when each line opens, but with provisions built into the plans for greater capacity for more or longer trains in all our new lines and greater capacity for passengers in all stations. Perhaps the Government can share more details on the new MRT lines that will assure the public that the designs for the new lines, trains and stations will be forward-thinking and will cater for the projected increase in our population and commuter traffic load in the next 50 years. Minister Khaw Boon Wan also stated in the Addendum to the President's Address that we will develop a workforce of capable engineers and technicians. I hope that with the Rail Academy as well as good human resource (HR) practices, we will not merely develop a strong team of capable and experienced engineers and technicians in the years to come, but we should also aim to develop good managers in different aspects of rail operations and management, including senior management. The President mentioned the building of the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) and the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) in her speech.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the President said in her Address for the Opening of the Second Session of Parliament that with bold thinking, we will create a metropolis that embraces the future. In my speech today, I will be focusing on certain issues relating to our transport. In his Ministry's Addendum to the President's Address, Minister for Transport Mr Khaw Boon Wan pointed out that good connectivity bolsters Singapore's vibrant economy. I totally agree with him. At the Committee of Supply debates in 2016 and 2017, I said that we should be greatly concerned over the loss of productivity to all our workers and our economy arising from the manhours lost to all train disruptions and delays over the last few years. I wonder whether the Government has ever done a study to measure the loss of productivity to our economy arising from train delays and disruptions between 2011 and 2017, or the time wasted due to delays from getting to work and getting home after a tired day at work, including unhappiness, stress and anxiety generated. Regardless of whether the Government may think that the worst of our rail unreliability and frequent train disruptions may be over, we must not forget the lessons learnt from the poor maintenance management, the poor planning of our rail system and infrastructure, or the impact of train delays on our economy and commuters. Even as the Government plans and brings about the expansion of our rail network, I hope the same lessons will provide a firm reminder to get the planning, equipment, infrastructure and even the ethos right from the beginning.”
“Is there any intention for our RSAF jets to share the use of any runway with civilian aircraft in Changi Airport and, if so, what measures will be taken to bolster security for our air force units and assets as well as for Changi Airport generally? Finally, on the subject of the levy, what is the rationale behind the different levies for origin-destination passengers and transit and transfer passengers currently set at $10.80 and $3.00 respectively per departure, including passengers on one-way tickets to Singapore and thereafter on separate one-way tickets to elsewhere, also set at $10.80? 4.09 pm”
“I would like to ask the Minister the following questions in respect of both air and noise pollution. One, what are the current levels of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds or any other types of pollutants that are currently generated at Changi Airport as well as the projected levels of such pollutants which can be expected to be generated when T5 opens? Two, has the Government done any studies regarding the projected air and noise pollution that may come with the opening phase of T5 and, if so, when can the Government release the details of such studies? Three, beyond the application of international regulations discussed above, will the Second Minister clarify what are the measures the Government may be considering to reduce or minimise the air pollution from aircraft using Changi? Will the Government consider measures, such as the additional tariffs for older aircraft, to discourage airlines from using older aircraft? Four, what are the measures which the Government will take to reduce or mitigate the expected increase in air pollution around the airport caused by ground vehicular traffic? Five, does the Government intend to introduce any air or noise pollution safeguards to protect people living within a certain distance from the airport, for example, say, a radius of 10 km to 15 km from Changi Airport and, if so, what are these measures? Moving to a different issue, with the third runway going to be completed first ahead of the completion of T5 and with the siting of T5 at Changi East, will there be any security implications for our air force units and assets currently based in Changi?”
“But even as ICAO have painstakingly agreed in recent years to take various mitigation measures to reduce aviation emissions, such as Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), our new aircraft CO2 emissions standards and so on, they alone may still be insufficient for various reasons, such as the non-application of emission regulations to older aircraft, given the relatively long lifespan of aircraft or the non-uniform application of regulations across different states. Another example is that carbon offsets alone may not guarantee no pollution on the ground. Regulations also do not adequately address ground vehicular road pollution. Above all, in a case like ours where flight capacity may increase significantly, I wonder whether the measures will still not prevent a relatively notable increase in air pollution. Perhaps, the Second Minister can explain how the Government intends to use regulations to assist in the control of aviation emission and to control and minimise pollution. Noise pollution is the other type of pollution we can expect from airports. Residents currently living near Changi or even the Air Force bases in Paya Lebar or Tengah may, perhaps, be more used to varying levels of aircraft noise pollution. Unlike military airports which may have strict flight times in the evening, for example, between 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm, many passenger aircrafts depart Changi Airport after 10 pm, throughout the night and during the early morning hours. With the projected 60% increase in MPPA, will it bring new levels of noise pollution to residents living in the east and north-east, such as Changi, Loyang, Pasir Ris, Tampines, Tanah Merah, Bedok and East Coast?”
“Elsewhere, it has been variously linked to cancer, asthma, stroke, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, liver damage, diabetes and even obesity, birth defects and dementia. A bigger Changi means more than just an increase in flights but also proportionately more of the various ground vehicular traffic I have described above. We should also not forget any increase in pollution from transporters if Changi should make use of its greater airport capacity to increase its business in air freight and logistics. If an airport attracts significant local visitors to its retail and food outlets, it will also increase the amount of road traffic. Currently, many people love to visit the airport as a form of outing, attracted by plane spotting as well as the large number of retail and food outlets. With Jewel Changi Airport and the huge size of the proposed T5, the airport may attract more visitors for a day out at the airport. Any increase in road traffic emissions does not just affect the airport location itself but also the roads leading to the airport. Second Minister Ng had said that, with T5, there will be an additional 50 MPPA, which is a 60% from Changi's current capacity. Mr Ng cited 50 MPPA in its initial phase, so, the MPPA may possibly increase in subsequent years. This Bill just proposed to enable the making of regulations to give effect to the Chicago Convention and any other international agreement to which Singapore is a party for mitigating specifically the environmental effect of international aviation emission.”
“Just as the MPPA figures which Second Minister Ng just trotted out may have excited me in terms of the global growth of our airport in the near future, I have a concern with the possible increase in pollution any such expansion may bring. Admittedly, the continuing success of Changi Airport and its future expansion are an important factor in our economy. However, these benefits must also be weighed against any environmental impact Changi Airport has on the quality of life of Singaporeans living near the airport and possibly on the eastern and north-eastern part of Singapore. Apart from the impact of greenhouse emissions on a global climate, there are two kinds of pollution arising from airport operations which have an effect locally: air pollution and noise pollution. In the case of Changi Airport, some relief that having its runways facing the seas will be useful in reducing land-based pollution although wind direction will play a part, too, for air pollution. Having said that, it has been recognised that air pollution at airports arises from a combination of aircraft and road traffic emissions associated with the airport. Road traffic includes passenger vehicles like buses, taxis and cars visiting the airport to send or pick up passengers as well as maintenance vehicles, vehicles carrying luggage, personnel or catering and even security and fire safety vehicles. Airports are known to produce large amounts of toxic emissions. They are a threat to human health, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxides, sulphur oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Air pollution through these pollutants can present a public health challenge.”