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 18 of 22.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek one clarification from the Senior Minister of State. Could the Senior Minister of State provide us with any data about whether the burial by sea or scattering of ashes by sea, has it become more popular in the last three to five years? Could the Senior Minister of State update us on that?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that. I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one clarification on what he just said. Perhaps the Minister could clarify to the public: when a train is on automatic mode, is each driver required to switch to control manual mode, before he can apply the brakes, or he has access to emergency brakes, even in automatic mode?”
“I thank the Minister. I understand the explanation about the problem which is created by the software logic issue. But my two questions today focused on the driver's access to the braking system of the train. This is important because whether it is a software logic issue that creates any situation or any other kind of glitch, software or otherwise, I would like to ask the Minister, whether in that accident or in ordinary circumstances, whether the train is operating on automatic mode or controlled manual mode, what is the access the driver or the OCC has to apply emergency braking, and what would be that expected reaction time?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. One, I understand from media reports and correct me if I am wrong here, that because of the failure conditions, the bubbles did not take place. I think there was a fixed distance of about 36 metres between the first and second trains. I just heard from the Minister that the driver apparently applied the emergency brakes, or did he apply the brakes and they did not work? Is my understanding correct? So, can I just clarify with the Minister on this point, whether or not the driver applied the emergency brakes or the automatic brakes to be used in emergency circumstances like what is available on the East-West and North-South Lines? If that is the case, subject to the Minister's answer, will LTA look into the condition of why the brakes did not come into effect, despite there being a braking distance of 36 metres? My second question is, in light of what has just happened, which I agree could be quite unique, but nevertheless, for safety purposes, will SMRT be required to review its standard operating procedures (SOPs) in contingency situations like what we saw at Joo Koon, so that the OCC or the driver will be alerted to and will be required to apply the brakes when trains start to move in unforeseeable circumstances in order to prevent collisions from happening?”
“At the time, I believe that we should also be mindful that requirements are not too impractical or onerous that they create additional or unnecessary burdens on our charities, their staff and volunteers as well as non-charities and well-meaning Singaporeans.”
“I would have preferred that this Bill would have shed more light on these details or the explanatory note in the Bill. The House should, in fact, assess this Bill with the changes the Ministry intends to make in the subsidiary legislations to know what is the ultimate package that the public can expect. Overall, without the benefit of looking at the fine print changes in the fundraising regulations, I am concerned whether the change in the definition of the coverage of fundraising appeal will make it too onerous for charities, especially smaller charities with limited resources or volunteers in these charities, as well as non-charity fundraisers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for her view on the continuing relevance of the rationale of the 80:20 ratio for persons wishing to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes where 80% of the funds raised must go to a charitable purpose in Singapore. How does the Government see that such a ratio will continue to benefit charities or any organisation raising funds for a foreign charitable cause? How does the Government weigh that against the benefit of our locally-based charity helping to raise funds for a worthy foreign charitable cause? I am aware that there are exceptions to this rule, but for those who are not excluded from the rule application, is it time to review this requirement or just the current ratio? My Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I agree that it is good to encourage good governance among our charities, in our fundraising efforts, for example.”
“The Ministry stated in their comments to public feedback during consultation that the Ministry would be reviewing fundraising regulations to make sure that the requirements will not apply to small fundraising efforts. I am not sure if I heard the Minister correctly in her speech just now. May I ask the Minister to elaborate a bit more on the limits of small fundraising efforts, and how small fundraising efforts apply to fundraising in schools, associations and religious organisations, whether they be mosques, churches or temple organisations? On crowdfunding regime, given the new expanded definition of fundraising appeal, I would also like to ask the Minister to confirm whether the new regulation, the new regime, also applies to online crowdfunding. There are amazing Singaporeans who raise funds and gather volunteers online to carry out acts of charity and kindness, such as providing meal vouchers, food, daily necessities or supermarket vouchers to elderly folks or households who may be struggling financially. I read from press reports that a code of practice for crowdfunding platform will be launched this month by the Commissioner of Charities. But it seems that it will not be mandatory. I do hope that however well-meaning this code may be, the code or any intended regulation will not stifle or discourage Singaporeans from continuing their acts of charity through crowdfunding. On to my conclusion on the fundraising appeal point. It appears to me that significant amendments will need to be made to the current subsidiary legislations on fundraising regulations to cover the expanded scope of fundraising appeal. I think we should know now, if not later, that sufficient details about what the impending regulatory changes are.”
“As regards to grant-making philanthropic organisations, may I clarify with the Minister how the amendment affects them and whether we are talking about such organisations making appeals for donations to fund the grants or assistance they render to members of the public? Next, private fundraising within schools, associations and religious organisations. The Ministry stated in their comments to public consultation feedback that they intended for fundraising to include private fundraising activities within schools, associations and religious organisations. So, it seems that besides grant-making philanthropic organisations, the coverage will be extended to other non-charity fundraisers. The Ministries said that it is important for the Commissioner to be able to stop improper fundraising. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not doubt that such new regulations may be able to enable the Commissioner to be in a better position to stop improper fundraising. However, I am concerned that this may also discourage many sincere and well-meaning Singaporeans in their different organisations from raising funds for very good reasons, not to mention the resulting bureaucratic hooks that will be imposed on non-charity fundraisers. Will the Minister also clarify whether this new definition of fundraising appeal and the fundraising appeal regulations to be amended will apply to all types of fundraising by schools, associations and religious organisations, or whether it will cover only a certain limited mode of fundraising? For example, will it apply to religious organisations raising funds by auctions, for example, as we often see during temple or seventh-month dinners? Next, small fundraising efforts.”
“However, the explanation note in the Bill stops there, without any further elaboration. It does not elaborate adequately on its expanded coverage. I have some concerns with this change of definition and coverage of fundraising appeal, especially the extent of its scope of coverage. It appears that the coverage may now extend to unsolicited donations, private donations or fundraising in schools, associations and religious organisations. First, unsolicited donations – the Ministry's comments to public feedback during the public consultation process. The Ministry also stated that this can now include unsolicited donations and appeals to grant-making philanthropic organisations. The explanation note to the Bill does not, however, confirm this or say anything about it. Unsolicited donations, as its name suggests, are donations made purely voluntarily and without any initiative or action on the part of the charity. It is therefore extremely odd to include such donations as part of fundraising appeals. I would like to ask the Minister why there is a need now to include such a new category into the definition such that its coverage actually exceeds its literal meaning. Is there any particular recent incident which caused the Ministry to think that the expanded coverage is absolutely necessary? If so, will the Minister share with the House some of the details of the incident and how they led the Ministry to propose these changes? My Deputy Speaker, I would also like to know from the Minister what changes the Ministry will be making to the fundraising regulations, which will apply specifically to unsolicited donations. Next, grant-making philanthropic organisations.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as a board member of the charity, the WP Community Fund. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the proposed amendments relating to the disqualifications and removal of persons involved in charities. I have some concerns regarding the changes to the definitions and coverage of key officer and fundraising appeal, which are important. First, on the definition of key officer. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the proposed expansion in the definition of key officer, I would like to ask the Minister whether all members of the governing board of a charity will be considered as key officers. I am concerned that the onerous liability imposed by the amendments will discourage people who are wanting to serve in charities, especially smaller charities where management resources may be limited, and that, in turn, puts pressure on people wanting to serve. How will the Ministry allay such fears and encourage more volunteers to step up and serve in charities, both big and small? I next move on to fundraising appeal. Mr Deputy Speaker, I go on to the change in the definition and limits on fundraising appeal in section 39. Under the amendment Bill, the listing of definition of fundraising appeal to members of the public will be deleted and replaced by a new set of definition. It seems to me that the existing scope of fundraising appeal to members of the public will now be expanded quite considerably, beyond the members of the public. In the explanation note to the Bill, the Ministry cited a new example of an appeal by an unincorporated association to its members. The existing law applies to an appeal to members of the public and does not cover private appeal or donations.”
“Perhaps the Minister can shed more light on how extensive this can be, and can it, for example, be akin to a forensic audit.”
“I would like to ask the Minister when was the last time that LTA conducted any inspection on the pump system at Bishan. Next, I note that the Minister had mentioned that there was some form of prioritising in respect of the audit by LTA on the different aspects. For example, I think the Minister mentioned that they were focusing more on the bigger rail reliability issues. Would the Minister agree with me that this was, actually, a grave oversight because the smallest of component can cause a train disruption, and a train disruption is a train disruption. It could be caused by a defective door or by a bigger component, a bigger fault in the whole system. I think the Minister also mentioned, and I agree, the comparison with the aerospace industry. I agree with the Minister because in the aerospace industry, the air worthiness certification is required for even the smallest of components for the aircraft. So, they are very meticulous. The point I am trying to say is that, if you cannot get the small things right, you are not going to get the big things right. So, moving forward, will the Minister agree that all audit regimes by LTA – or, in fact, by SMRT, – have to be very thorough? It has to cover both the small things and the big things. And, in fact, it was a so-called smaller issue, like the pump. The cause of the pump failure is actually quite small but if you look at the cause of it, the falsification of the records, the conduct of the whole team, it actually points to an organisational issue. Finally, I am not sure if I have heard the Minister correctly. I believe my colleague Mr Pritam Singh has also asked about how extensive will the internal audit of SMRT or the review by the Taipei experts be.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I am not sure the gist of my question has been addressed. I am asking about whether or not the foreign-registered motorcycles or scooters are required to have insurance issued for the use of delivery of goods, carriage of goods within Singapore for hire or reward, or as part of the employment. The rationale for my question is simply this: normally, for passenger vehicles or motorcycles in Singapore, the insurance for these vehicles, there is a caveat that says that you are not allowed to use them for any commercial use. So, when a vehicle is then deployed for commercial use, such as carriage of goods for hire or reward, for delivery services, technically, the insurer can reject liability when a claim is presented as a result of an accident. So, would the Senior Minister of State address my question in that light? Also, what actions have been taken or will be taken in respect of this possibility, so that in the event of any claim arising out of any accident, the victim or the person who has collided with such a vehicle or is a victim of such an accident, will still be able to present a claim against the insurer of such motorcycle or scooter?”
“Sorry, if I did not make myself clear. I meant, does it include, for example, any funding for any proposed works that deal with political parties in our history, in the past that may present to some people a different interpretation of what the party did or did not do in the past? Would this come under the prohibition that the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned?”
“Can I just ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the prohibition against the undermining of political parties includes political parties in the past?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers to the queries that I have raised. Perhaps the Minister has overlooked this issue that I have raised. I raised the issue of a lack of provisions regarding conservation and environmental protection and public health with EIA and heritage impact assessment provisions, and public feedback as well. Will the Minister comment on these?”
“Finally, on the progress for the projects. On the issue of meeting timelines, as the projects also substantially involve Malaysia, and quite heavily so, is the Minister able to tell this House whether he is confident that both countries will be able to abide by the projected timelines for construction and launch of the projects? Should we be concerned at all whether the outcome of the next Malaysian General Elections may have any effect on the progress of the projects? Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House. Finally, may I also ask the Minister to assure this House that the Government will ensure that all contracts will be awarded to companies which will be able to provide sound and quality construction or engineering work that will not saddle us with future problems of poor design, workmanship, repairs and inefficiency?”
“There should also be provisions regulating noise and other forms of pollution to protect people living or working nearby. There should be due diligence to ascertain: one, whether there are heritage sites nearby; two, if so, how they may be affected by the construction and operation of the railway; and three, what mitigation efforts should be put in place. We should have such measures in place at the onset before any problem even crops up. Clause 5 of the Bill pertains to the preparation and publishing of railway plans and maps and the finality of such plans and maps. Far beyond what are provided in clause 5, I think we should allow: one, greater public information about planning decisions before they are made; and two, public feedback about such planning decisions. In that regard, clause 6, which provides that no person has a right of objection to the delineation of land as railway area, should be reconsidered or amended. I would like to ask the Government how can the public give feedback or lodge any objection. Will the Government consider incorporating similar provisions on the tendering of objections and representation as well as hearings and public inquiries seen in the Planning Act and Planning (Masterplan) Rules? Next, I touch on the possibility of double punishment. I would also like to clarify with the Minister how the Government proposes to handle the possibility of both regulators from opposite sides of the Causeway meting out penalties against the concessionaire, licensees, operators or even subcontractors for the same infringements or breaches of any regulatory requirement. Has the Malaysian Parliament introduced an equivalent Bill and looked into this issue? Both regulators should make this clear to the concessionaire, licensees or operators at the onset.”
“In light of the ongoing fiasco regarding the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit's (SMRT’s) maintenance efforts, I would urge the Government to put in place such measures at the beginning so that the cross-border railways can start with the right operational and maintenance regimes and the right corporate culture for operations and maintenance, and avoid the pitfalls we have seen with SMRT maintenance as well as LTA’s oversight of SMRT’s maintenance. As the cross-border railways involve two governments and possibly foreign concessionaires or licensees, this may be more complicated to manage. Therefore, I hope the Government will get this right from the start so that we do not have this fiasco with poor operating conditions and maintenance down the road. Next, I touch on the lack of provisions relating to conservation, environmental protection, public health risk, environmental impact assessment (EIA) and heritage impact assessment, as well as lack of provisions for public feedback and objections on these issues. This Bill involves a major construction project and long-term operation of regular high-speed rail services. However, the Bill is silent on conservation or environmental protection. Construction and operation of the railway will affect the surrounding areas and have a detrimental impact on residents and businesses. There should be provisions for environmental, health and heritage impact assessments both before and during construction as well as periodically during operations to ensure that residents and businesses in the area are not adversely affected by the operations. If there are environmental or health risks, there should be provisions for mitigation with responsibilities between operators and regulators clearly spelt out.”
“So, if a two-month notice is given under this clause, the owner of the property will probably not be able to have sufficient time to buy another property and complete the conveyancing process, not to mention to have time to look around for a suitable replacement property or time to do renovations for the new property. Whether it is a commercial property or a residential property, this is equally unfair. I hope the Government will reconsider this provision to give a longer notice period of, say, at least six months. Mr Speaker, it is currently unclear whether there are any plans for both the HSR and RTS to run through privately held land in Singapore. Is the Minister able to provide any indication at this point that the new railways will definitely require acquisition of private land? Next, I touch on the issue of the Independent Safety Auditor. Part 9 of the Bill provides for the appointment of an Independent Safety Auditor as well as rail safety inspectors. Will the Minister please clarify whether the Independent Safety Auditor and the rail safety inspectors will also be auditing or inspecting the maintenance regimes of the railway and associated infrastructures? If the Government does not currently envisage these persons to perform these respective roles in terms of maintenance regimes for trains as well as infrastructure, will the Minister clarify who will perform such roles? Should we, for example, not have a specific provision in the Bill for a maintenance auditor and inspectors, with necessary support from LTA?”
“We need to be assured of the shareholding of the companies who are concessionaires, licensees or operators, lest they fall into wrong hands and bring unnecessary risks and consequences. For the same reasons as the Government has argued in the recent debate for the MPA (Amendment) Bill, surely the same equity controls provisions introduced in the MPA Act must also apply to all concessionaires, operators, subcontractors or licensees at all times or there will be some inconsistency. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on this. Next, I will touch on the acquisition of private land. Clause 8 of the Bill empowers LTA to, for purposes of constructing the railways or building-related infrastructure, enter private land and take possession of the land, and carry out acts like removing any building or structure, digging tunnel and constructing railway facilities. These are serious interferences with the rights of an owner of a private property. Under clause 8(3), owners must be given at least two months’ notice. Mr Speaker, two months’ notice is too short for such draconian acts of taking possession of land, removing building or building tunnels on one’s land. If the work that is going to be done under this clause compels the owners to have to stop living there or to stop their businesses on the land, the Government should give a longer notice. When a person decides to buy a private property, it will normally take up to about 10 weeks to 12 weeks for the conveyancing process, that is, the legal process for the transfer of title, to complete.”
“The CBR Bill is an important Bill providing for the construction, maintenance, operation and regulation of cross-border railways between Singapore and Malaysia. The Bill provides that the Government may enter into a concession agreement relating to the construction, maintenance, operation and improvement of the railway infrastructure of a cross-border railway with what is called a concessionaire. The Bill further provides for the concessionaire to appoint and enter into contract with one railway assets operator and a train service operator, both of whom are supposed to be regulated under the proposed Bill. If one regards container or port terminal operators to be important enough to be subject to approvals for equity changes under the MPA Act, then surely, for a Bill like the present one involving, say, one operator to be the railway assets operator and another one operator to be the train service operator, there is definitely a cause for the Government to impose similar equity control requirements. There will be concerns relating to customs, immigration and, of course, security as we are talking of many trains travelling between two countries on a daily basis. There may also be issues of economic security as we would like the train system to run profitably and efficiently. As this is a cross-border railway and in this climate where terrorist threats cannot be ruled out, the operators will need to pay attention and take steps to ensure the security of the rail assets and infrastructure as well as the security of the services and the passengers, staff as well as other users of the rail assets and facilities.”
“Under the Companies Act, a 5% shareholder is considered a substantial shareholder. Although a 5% shareholder typically does not have significant powers to drastically influence the direction of a company, it is still important for MPA to be informed of any new substantial shareholders of its designated public licensees. Shareholders with 25% or 50% interest, however, wield significant voting power in a company's decisions. A shareholder who has more than 25% equity interest can veto special resolutions under the Companies Act. A shareholder with more than 50% equity interest can pass ordinary resolutions. These are the reasons why MPA should have some regulatory oversight on shareholders seeking to reach 25% and 50% of the equity interest respectively. On the other hand, a shareholder will lose its ability to control special resolutions if its equity interest falls below 75%. It will lose its ability to control ordinary resolutions if its equity interest falls below 50%. As these are important corporate decisions that could impact the overall direction of the company, MPA should maintain oversight on whether it is in our national interest for any incumbent shareholders to relinquish such voting powers… The acquisition controls enable MPA to have oversight of single persons becoming a new major shareholder of a designated entity. The disposal controls grant MPA oversight of existing shareholders from selling interest in a designated entity, whether to a single or multiple persons." Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the Senior Minister of State on his justifications for the equity controls provisions in the MPA Bill, I wonder whether there are any reasons why the same equity controls provisions are deemed not necessary for the CBR Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the CBR Bill is an important Bill in various ways. It provides legislative support for the construction, management and operation of both the proposed KL-Singapore HSR and the Johor Bahru-Singapore RTS. Both the HSR and RTS will likely enhance cross-border trade and labour movement. I will first touch on equity control provisions. Mr Speaker, last month, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) (Amendment) Bill. In that Bill, we saw the introduction of onerous share transfer requirements. There is an obligation for a person becoming a 5% controller of a designated entity to notify the MPA. A person will also need to seek the prior approval of MPA before becoming a 25%, 50% or 75% controller or an indirect controller of a designated entity. There is a very detailed section on what it means to be an associate or subsidiary for purposes of determining direct or indirect controller of an entity. Any person intending to dispose interest that would result in that person's shareholding falling below 75% or 50% of the total interest in a designated entity will be required to obtain prior approval from MPA. When I asked for the rationale for the introduction of such onerous requirements, Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min said the following – and please do bear with me as I quote from him below as I think the rationale he has explained provided justification for the Government to introduce these controls – and I quote: "The intention of the equity control requirements is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the designated entities or restrict its commercial flexibility, but rather to require MPA's approval to be sought for transactions crossing stipulated significant thresholds in equity interest.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Yes, I do understand the current position, which I think has also been enunciated in past Parliamentary Question replies. I have this concern which I would like to address to the Senior Minister of State. There are concerns about TPAs driving up healthcare costs. Please let me quote from a Business Times article and I will just quote from the relevant extracts, "Health Economist, Phua Kai Hong, is of the view that third party healthcare financing, which includes insurers, TPAs and medical concierges will drive up Singapore healthcare costs in the long term, as they capitalise on the existing information gap between patients and doctors." Given there is a free market here, Dr Phua said, industry players will continue to take advantage of this asymmetry, unless relevant, regulatory and appropriate laws are in place to regulate the sector and improve transparency. Would the Senior Minister of State agree with me that we should, therefore, have some form of regulatory control over TPAs so that they will approach all issues with a similar mindset expected of the doctors working with the TPAs and we can then better minimise conflicts between business and professional ethical concerns?”
“Mr Speaker, I just want to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify. I think he may have missed out my question. Regarding section 86D, designating public licensee, my questions include (a) I would like to know why there is a provision for a designated public licensee and what would qualify as necessary in the public interest. Will the Senior Minister of State be able to share any examples and, if not, why are the considerations not set out in the section itself? Would the consideration be set out in any subsidiary legislation?”
“Under the new part 13A of this Bill, MPA will take over the regulatory roles relating to construction, maintenance, safe operation and navigation and the crew manning requirements and other aspects of inland craft. Permits for use on inland waterways and reservoir remain under the authority of PUB, and rightly so. This is a change in the right direction as MPA is the more appropriate authority for water borne vessels and craft. Mr Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Senior Minister of State. Operationally, how will MPA ensure that, on the ground, all vessels or inland crafts operate safely and in compliance with all regulations governing safe operation and navigation in the reservoirs and inland waterways? Will PUB still be working with the MPA in this area? If so, what will be their role on the ground? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications I am seeking, I support this Bill.”
“Such designation may only be made by the authority after consultation with the Minister if he considers that it is necessary in the public interest. Mr Speaker, in respect of this section, I would like to seek the Senior Minister of State's clarifications. One, I would like to know why there is a provision for designated public licensee, business trust and equity interest holders. Two, what qualifies for, as I quote from the Bill "necessary in the public interest"? Will the Senior Minister of State please elaborate on the considerations which will be taken into account when the authority is making such designations? Will the Senior Minister of State be able to share any examples? Next, why are the considerations not set out expressly in section 86D? Finally, would such a bare provision not affect the consistency and certainty of this application or even be subject to abuse? Next, Mr Speaker, the proposed section 86E requires that if a person becomes a 5% controller of a designated public licensee holder, designated public trust or designated equity interest holder as a result of an increase in the holding of equity interest or in the voting power controlled by that person or any associate of that person, he must notify the authority in writing. Again, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what is the rationale for this. Would the new provisions in section 86F requiring persons to seek prior approval before becoming a 25%, 50% or 75% controller of designated entities be sufficient? Next, I move on to the regulation of inland craft. This is another important change. What the Bill seeks to do is to have MPA regulate inland watercraft, a role which will be taken over from PUB.”
“Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there was any incident in the recent past relating to the change of control of existing public licensee or business trust which might have had some adverse implications on the operations of any licence or services in question or on our ports or the security of our ports, for that matter, which may have spurred the Government to introduce these new onerous requirements. If so, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State can share with the House the details of any such past incident. Under the existing provisions, if there is any contravention of the conditions for a public licence, the authority may cancel or suspense his licence or require the payment of a fine as he thinks fit. I am referring to section 84(1). I am not in favour of any fine that can be decided at the complete discretion of the authority, which is the existing law. Unfortunately, section 84(1) will remain. What is worse, in my view, is that under the proposed section 86(i), the proposed punishments, including fines, is not exceeding $500,000 or $1,000,000 and imprisonment of three years, or both fine and punishment, are very heavy penalties, indeed. I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State could explain the need for such heavy punishments. Mr Speaker, the new section 86E empowers the authority to designate public licensee, the relevant business trust managed by a trustee manager who is a public licensee or a person who holds equity interest in any public licence or business trust, as a designated public licensee, designated business trust or designated equity interest holder.”
“Mr Speaker, a major part of the amendments in this Bill is none other than the introduction of a new part 12 relating to the control of designated public licensees, designated business trust and designated equity interest holders. The new part 12(a) which includes section 86 A to L is being introduced, notwithstanding the existing provisions in, say, sections 81 to 89. The existing sections 81 to 89 already provide guidelines on conditions to be set upon grants of public licences. For example, section 81A provides that conditions in the public licence may contain control and restriction directly or indirectly on the creation, holding or disposal of shares in the public licensee. The new part 12(a) sets up new, detailed and onerous requirements, including an obligation for a person becoming a 5% controller of a designated entity to notify the authorities and a person needing to seek prior approval before becoming a 25% or 50% or 75% controller or an indirect controller of a designated entity. There are various remedial directions which can be given by the authority when there is a breach. There is a very detailed section on what it means to be an associate or subsidiary for purposes of determining direct or indirect control of a designated entity. I would like to understand more about the rationale for the introduction of these requirements, specifically because the change is very substantial and the requirements that are now in place in the draft provisions are very onerous. So, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State can explain a little further as to why such onerous requirements from the licensees are in this Bill.”
“I thank the Minister of State. Just a quick clarification. Would the study group be looking into the possibility of making it mandatory for SEPs to have some form of third-party insurance? A second question would be: how long is this review likely to take?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have one clarification. I would like to ask the Minister of State, in respect of SEPs, how does the study group intend to look into the issue of insurance that the SEPs should take when they take on such jobs, including insurance that provides for third-party claims, for example, when they run into a pedestrian or when they hit another vehicle on the road and possibly when they are in the wrong?”
“Separately, if an action is being taken by the MC under section 37(4A) against an existing owner and such action has not come to an end, will the MC be entitled to file a caveat against the property in case the property is being put on the market? This may serve to protect innocent buyers who may not be informed of the alleged breach or any related action the MC may be taking against the existing owner. Finally, I touch on the ban on double appointment holders in the MC. The new section 53(9A) prohibits a person from holding more than one appointment in the MC for the following appointments of Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary. While I can understand the rationale for this new rule, I would like to ask the Minister, would the proposed exception that the Minister has just mentioned in his speech be applied in the case of an MCST that is owned by a few owners, for example, just two or three owners?”
“The new measure of requiring the budget to be approved beforehand at the previous AGM may also mean that MCs may resort to the practice of setting aside a kiasu budget which is needlessly larger than necessary and may not encourage prudence. It may stifle attempts by active MCs to constantly come up with new activities to encourage residents to fraternise and also the building up of community relations within the estate. Would this lead to external organisations, whether commercial or statutory, coming up with sponsorships of events for their own agenda, particularly given that budget is always an issue which affects MCSTs? Would it not be better to have a more general regulation leaving it to owners in each MCST to decide what kind of budgetary constraints or authorisation they wish to impose on their MC? This can be done at AGMs or even through individual by-laws of each MCST. Does the law need to interfere now with this new budgetary requirement? Next, I would touch on the area of improvements which increase the floor area. May I clarify with the Minister, for the proposed amendments to section 37, specifically the new subsection in section 37(4A) where the MC will have power to require any owners to carry out rectification works in the case of any breach of sections 37(1) and (3), will the MC be able to take action against the current owners if the work was carried out by a previous owner? If the answer to my question is yes, would the owner be able to seek recourse against the previous owners and, if the position on this is unclear, would the Minister consider amending the legislation to allow the right of recourse at least in certain prescribed situations?”
“Some owners may take the opportunity to push the boundary and push certain responsibility to their MCST. I next touch on the area of imposing budget. A new section 38(3A) imposes upon the MC the need to have the budget for (1) the organising of any social, cultural, educational or sports activities that are for the benefit of all SPs and occupiers as well as (2) engagement of legal services for the MCST, to be placed for approval as part of an annual budget at the AGM. The above two items of expenses are new additions under this Bill and inserted in sections 38(3)(d) and (e). Organising of social, cultural, educational or sports activities is arguably not new to condominiums or private estates as such. Neither is the need for MC to use legal services. However, what is new is the budgetary requirement in section 38(3A), that is to say, the need to have the budget be approved for these items at an AGM. In section 38(3B), a further new amendment proposes that the MC may convene an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) for approval of budget for unforeseen or urgent expenditure for the same two items. I find this slightly troubling. First, the need to go to an EOGM for these two items of expenditure may be cumbersome for not just the MC but the residents as well. The attendance of residents in most MCST AGM is hardly ever glowing. If the MC wants to hold a simple event for the residents which was never budgeted previously, it would be put off by the trouble to try and hold the EOGM, not to mention the likely difficulty of getting a quorum. Residents may feel that it may not justify their time.”
“There is an expanded definition of common property under the interpretation section in the new section 2(c) with four areas, namely, (i) pipes, wires, cables or ducts used or capable of being used by two or more occupiers; (ii) the cubic space enclosed by a structure enclosing pipes, wires, cables or ducts; (iii) any structural element of the building; and (iv) the waterproof membrane attached to an external wall or roof. The amendment also provided five examples. While the inclusion of the above areas may provide helpful access and management by the MCST and MA, I am concerned whether it will also provide more grounds for misunderstanding or disputes between owners and MCST or MA. There are likely to be cases that may be different from the five examples given and may not fit in clearly to the straitjacket of the four areas in section 2(c). On the other hand, the new four areas in section 2(c) may create new scenarios where disagreement or dispute may result. Let us take example (d) in the new section. It appears that a fire sprinkler protection system is now part of common property. Owners of an office strata unit may now need MCST's consent to make changes to the fire sprinkler system within their strata unit. And if so, what if an MA or MCST unreasonably withhold consent to the work intended or requires something to be done to the disagreement of the owners for reasons of costs, design or otherwise? Would a renovation not be held up? What are the options open to owners in such a situation if they do not agree with the MA or MCST? Finally, with the new areas in section 2(c), I am concerned whether or not this may become a double-edged sword for the MCST or MA or even owners as parties learn who will be responsible for what.”
“Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election. Mr Speaker, this Bill introduces fairly substantial amendments. While I do agree with most of the amendments here, I have some concerns and require some clarifications regarding this Bill. I will first talk about the suspension of Management Council and appointment of official management. Clause 53 of the Bill introduces new sections 126A and 126B which confer on the Commissioner new powers to suspend the management council (MC) of the MCST if it is satisfied that the MC is unable or refuses to carry out a duty under the Act that must be urgently carried out to remove any danger to the health or safety of the owners or occupants of the units and for such MCST to be placed under so-called "official management". These are very stern if not drastic measures, potentially threatening the status quo of the management of an MCST. I would like to ask the Minister what will be the circumstances that the Commissioner will be considering when making a decision to suspend the MC or to appoint an Official Manager (OM)? Will this recourse be abused by minority owners in the MCST who may, for reasons unrelated to the conditions in sections 126A and 126B, be disagreeable with the current management of an estate, for example, rival owners who may have lost out in MC elections or are disagreeable with the current management's plans or management priorities? I am concerned that the condition stated in clause 126B(1b) is too general and may be open to unintended abuses. Perhaps, the requirements should have been spelt out in greater detail in this Bill, or even in the subsidiary legislation behind the Act, for greater certainty and to prevent abuse. I next go on to the expansion in the definition of "common property".”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions. One, what measures will be taken to ensure that the project will continue as smoothly and as safely as possible? The second supplementary question is: is the Senior Minister of State able to give an estimated timeline of when the investigation will be completed and will the report be made public?”
“Madam, I have four supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first question is that if geographical location is one of the criteria that was taken into account, did the Ministry consider that in closing Serangoon Junior College, potential students residing in the northeast areas like Sengkang, Punggol and Hougang, would be affected, that is, they would have to travel to a college that is further away? The second supplementary question is that there is some talk that only the Government-funded, non-IP, non-Mission, non-affiliated JCs are being merged. If we look at the list of schools to be closed, that hypothesis does not seem entirely baseless. What is the Senior Minister of State's comment on what I would say is a popular view that is being taken? The third supplementary question is that if low enrolment is a criterion, last year's Straits Times reported about the growing popularity of a few JCs, namely, Meridian JC, Nanyang JC and Serangoon JC. Was this taken into account for this particular criterion of low enrolment? Does the Ministry not agree that by choosing to close down these schools, they would, to some extent, have undone some of the hard work that the principals and staff had put in? Finally, the Senior Minister of State also mentioned about consultation. Could I just ask who were the stakeholders from the affected JCs who were consulted? How long ago was this consultation? How long did the consultation take place?”
“It has taken a while for Singapore to introduce the Ballast Water Convention into our legislation. The Convention came up way back in 2004. Yes, it will only come into force worldwide on 8 September 2017. But given the environmental concerns we have heard and given the fact that we are one of the busiest ports in the world, one of the five largest ship registries in the world and one of the leading maritime hubs in the world, if the Government is of the view that such convention is the right way forward, then perhaps we should have ratified the Convention earlier. In contrast, by way of examples, countries like Malaysia ratified the Convention in 2010 and Australia and Indonesia in 2016. Madam, on the issue of maximum penalties listed under the different provisions of this amendment Bill, I know some of the sentences have been increased but I still have some concerns whether they are adequate, especially fines on shipowners. Madam, I support the Bill.”
“This is the backdrop for the introduction of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments even back in 2004. The Ballast Water Convention introduces global regulations to control the transfer of potentially invasive species. Under the Convention, ballast water will need to be treated before it is released into a new location so that any micro-organism or small marine species are eliminated before the ballast water is discharged into the open marine environment again. Under the Ballast Water Convention, all ships must install appropriate ballast water treatment systems. Ships must have a ballast water record book, recording the occasions when ballast water is taken onboard or treated for ballast water management purposes, discharged into a reception facility as well as any accidental discharges of ballast water. The aim is to prevent, minimise and, ultimately, eliminate the transfer of harmful organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships ballast water sediments. As Singapore is one of the busiest ports in the world and sits by one of the busiest sea channels in the world, we have many vessels coming into our port waters or passaging through nearby seas. The risk of invasive species causing ecological damage to our seas and marine environment cannot be discounted. Madam, this is one reason I support this Bill. Another reason that I support this Bill is because Singapore is among one of the top five ship registries in the world and has over 4,000 ships under its registry. The operation of our system, our Singapore flagship, does not affect only our Singapore waters but also affects the seas around the world as the vessels ply the international waters.”
“Madam, by this proposed Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, the Government intends to ratify and bring into force the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004. Ships have been using sea water as a ballast to stabilise ships at sea for more than a hundred years. Sea water is pumped into or out of ships to achieve safe and desirable operating conditions for the ships. It helps the ships to maintain stability and enhances manoeuvrability, especially when the sea conditions or the volume of cargo, fuel or water onboard a ship may change in the course of each voyage. Stress on the ship's hull may also be reduced accordingly with the use of ballast water. A ship may take in seawater for ballast at a particular location and discharge the same water at a different part of the world. What this means is that the ship will unwittingly transport all micro-organisms and marine species in the sea water from one part of the world to another part of the world. Such species may include microbes, bacteria, small invertebrates, larvae, eggs and cysts of different species. Frequently, some of such species may survive and reproduce in the new environment where they have been discharged, compete with the local species and becoming effectively pests in the new environment and affecting the new environment in an adverse way. As the volume of sea traffic grew with the rise of international trade over the last 50 years, the environmental impact of the invasive species caused by the discharged ballast water has started to pose serious ecological, economic and health issues.”
“On the issue of penalties listed under sections 4, 15, 23 and 31 of the Bill, I am concerned whether the recommended maximum fines are sufficient to deter reporting or other offences. Madam, we could have passed this Bill earlier, perhaps two years ago, when the Wreck Removal Convention came into force after 10 countries have ratified it. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any reason for the delay in implementing this Convention under our national legislation. I note from an MPA circular of 2015 that preparations were being made to legislation to implement this convention and MPA directed the Singapore-flagged ships to the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, Marshall Islands, Liberia and Cook Islands for the issuance of the State Certificates. These countries had ratified the Convention before the Convention came into force. Notwithstanding the above, I am in support of the Bill.”
“Under the Convention, ships of 300 gross tonnage and above which are registered with the ship registry of a State Party to the Convention or which is entering or leaving a port belonging to a state party, will need to have insurance arrangements in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, leading to an insurance certificate or what is called a Blue Card to be issued by insurers. Ships are also required under the Convention to obtain a certificate from a state which is party to the Convention, attesting that such insurance is in place for each vessel. Such state certificate must be carried on board the vessel. The good news is that the insurance cover required has been made readily available by the key Protection and Indemnity (P&I) clubs within the International Group in the world, and this made for easier compliance for all ships and their registered owners, albeit adding to the costs of doing business. Vessels registered in a state which is not party to the Convention but which perform voyages to countries which are parties to the Convention must obtain a certificate from a State Party. In fact, between 2015 and the present date, as Singapore delayed in its ratification of the Convention, MPA had issued an advisory to ships registered under the Singapore flag to obtain such certificates from other countries which have ratified the Convention earlier. The Convention also includes an optional clause at Article 3(2) enabling state parties to extend the coverage of the Convention to wrecks within their territorial sea. May I clarify with the Minister whether we are doing that, especially given our relative proximity to neighbouring countries?”
“Madam, through this Merchant Shipping (Wreck Removal) Bill, Singapore will finally be ratifying the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks of 2007. Madam, according to the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) website, the number of abandoned wrecks, currently estimated at almost 1,300 worldwide, has increased, and the problem that the wrecks posed to coastal states and shipping generally has become more serious. According to IMO, wrecks create various problems. One, the wreck may be a hazard to navigation, risking the safety of ships and their crew. Two, the vessel or their cargo may pose environmental risk, for example, pollution to the waters or environment may be caused by bunkers or cargo carried by the vessel. Coastal fishing may be affected. Three, the costs of marking and removing wrecks have always been an issue. Provision of compulsory insurance cover aims to deal with this issue of costs. The Wreck Removal Convention will provide new international rules that will ensure prompt and effective removal of wrecks located beyond the territorial seas of all signatory countries. It took about seven years for the Convention to achieve the requisite number of ratifications, which was the number of 10 countries from around the world triggering the entry into force conditions. This took place on 14 April 2014. As a result, amongst the states which had ratified it earlier, the Convention entered into force on 14 April 2015. Under the Convention, the registered owner of a ship is responsible for locating, marking and removing a wreck deemed to be a hazard in a state's Convention area. It will also provide states with a right of direct action against insurers.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive answers. Just one clarification. In an answer to my colleague hon Member Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's question last month, MOM said, "Our inspection focus on work at height activities and falling object hazards which were the main causes of workplace fatalities during that period". This is for MOM conducting workplace safety inspections of various train depots. I have also asked about what is the expected scope of such safety inspections. Can I just clarify with the Minister of State that even the recent incident in March 2016, which did not involve work at height activities and falling objects, will MOM be increasing the scope of inspection for MRT train operators?”
“Can I ask the Senior Minister of State is it possible to share what are the criteria for deciding whether to install a toilet in the parks, small or bigger parks, along the Park Connectors?”
“Madam, can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether driver fatigue has been identified as a major cause of the accidents for the foreign drivers? If so, what are the efforts to engage the workers as well as the companies, especially with the possibility that the workers may be working overtime to increase their salary before they go home.”
“This broadens the Courts' jurisdiction to offences that cause "serious harm" to Singapore, and "harm" is defined, inter alia, as "serious diminution of public confidence in the provision of any essential service or exercise of any power" in subsection (4)(b) and "a disruption of, or a serious diminution of public confidence in, the performance of any duty or function of, or the exercise of any power by the Government, an Organ of State, a Statutory Board…” and so on. This term "serious diminution of public confidence" seems somewhat unnecessarily broad. How does one define this term and how do we expect the Courts to decide what constitutes "serious diminution of public confidence"? I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarification. Finally, in closing, at the 2016 Budget Debate, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said that there will be a new standalone Cybersecurity Bill that will be tabled in Parliament in 2017 which will, I quote "ensure that operators take proactive steps to secure our critical information infrastructure, and report incidents" and also "empower CSA to manage cyber incidents and raise the standards of cybersecurity providers in Singapore". In light of the recent incidents, may I take the opportunity to ask the Government to update the House on the Government's plans for this, even though I realise it may be of a different Ministry? Madam, I support the Bill.”
“Three, making it an offence certain acts which are committed overseas, and targeting overseas-based computers, but which create a significant risk of serious harm in Singapore. Four, amalgamating charges for offences under the Bill. Madam, in the explanatory note to this Bill, we read that this Bill seeks to amend the Act "primarily to deal with the changing modus operandi with which computer offences are carried out". While I support this Bill, I have two grave concerns. Clause 3 provides for a new section 8A(6), and I quote: "For the purpose of proving under subsection (1) that a person knows or has reason to believe that any personal information was obtained by an act done in contravention of sections 3, 4, 5 or 6, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the particulars of contravention, such as who carried out the contravention and when it took place." This section is doing away with the need for the prosecution to prove the particulars of contravention, such as who carried out the contravention and when it took place. Madam, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the prosecution being relieved of this burden to prove the particulars of the contravention in question. I think these are fundamental issues which the prosecution should prove before another person can be charged and convicted of obtaining, retaining or making use of the information in question. While I agree that we need to enhance our efforts to tackle and prosecute cybercrimes, I still believe that we should really try to limit easing the burden of proof in this way. Madam, I refer next to the amendments contained in clause 4 which pertains to the amendment of section 11 of the Act.”