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 21 of 22.
“Madam, I have one question for Minister Masagos. It is a very quick question. Regarding what the Minister said about the male Wolbachia mosquito experiment, what is the expected time frame for this experiment before the Ministry decides to introduce it on a bigger scale? And I have one quick question for the Minister for Health. Is the Minister able to confirm whether the current strain of virus in Singapore is similar to the one in Brazil and if that is not known yet, when does he expect to know whether it is the same strain?”
“The risk of a tribunal failing to consider relevant evidence or making its decision based on arguably wrongful evidence cannot be discounted. I feel that this affects the quality of justice. Naive or less educated workers who may not know how best to protect themselves with written evidence or any agreement with the employers may be disadvantaged by such a system. This problem of the tribunal not bound by the rules of evidence is further compounded by other provisions in the Bill. For example, clause 23 provides that appeal against any decision of the tribunal is to the High Court but only on issue of law or a claim being outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court is prohibited by clause 25(2) of this Bill to vary the tribunal's decision on the question of fact or to receive further evidence. Why do we not accept further evidence, especially if further evidence turns up after the proceedings? Sir, this Bill is indeed a step in the right direction, but I hope we can do much more with the proposed tribunal. Page: 95”
“I have asked this because six months is really a short time and it could well be that the employee was busy looking for a new job, adjusting to a new job or his or her family may require urgent attention or, as we often see in employment disputes, the employee may be communicating with his or her employers and trying to come to an agreement regarding the dispute. Under this Bill, claims are limited to $20,000 or $30,000 for claimants to go through the TMF or MOM conciliation prescribed under the IRA. I am of the view that, unlike the Small Claims Tribunal, we should set a higher minimum monetary limit for cases before the ECT. A good indication of a minimum limit should be the median annual income so that employers are less likely to be able to delay a hearing before the tribunal on a calculation that the employee may not have sufficient resources to pursue the case in the civil Courts. Hence, the claim limit should be raised beyond $20,000. Let it cover more claims involving more PMEs and PMEs with higher income rather than let it go to the State Courts or beyond, where legal costs would be considerably higher. Clause 21 of the Bill provides that a tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence in the conduct of any proceeding and may inform itself on any matter in such a manner as the tribunal thinks fit. This is something which I feel is not satisfactory. If, as what I suggested earlier that the claims limit can be increased beyond $20,000, we should definitely enhance the current provision in clause 21 of letting the tribunal not be bound by the rules of evidence in proceedings under this Bill. I am saying this because, under the proposed provisions, the tribunal has a wide discretion whether to admit or accept evidence.”
“It may well be unfair to parties in such cases for the appointed tribunals to just ignore arguments relating, for example, to unfair dismissal or discrimination. It is naive to pretend that such scenarios will not happen and it may be an injustice to employees or employers if the tribunal were to disregard such issues or evidence completely. Sir, instead of having different forums to hear different types of employment or labour-related disputes, may I propose that the Government consider having one tribunal that can hear all types of labour-related employment disputes? This may take away some cases from the Courts. We can have a tribunal that hears claims or employment claims, unfair dismissal and discrimination as well. My colleague, Mr Faisal Manap, as well as other speakers before me have proposed that domestic workers should also be considered to be entitled to the use of the ECT. By way of example, the Employment Tribunal in the UK hears claims from employees arising from unlawful Page: 94 treatment by employers, potential employers or even trade unions. Unlawful treatment includes unfair dismissal, discrimination and unfair deductions from one's pay. The Bill provides that claims must be filed for mediation within one year from the date on which the claim arises, or six months if the employment relationship has ended. Comparing the statutory time limit for claims in the State and High Courts for employment contracts-related claims which is six years, the proposed time bar of one year and six months respectively is extremely short. Could the Minister explain the rationale for having such a short time limit under the Bill, especially that of half a year? Would the Minister consider raising the limits to at least one year after the employment relationship has ended?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer and I do handle employment matters and disputes in the course of my work. The proposed constitution on the ECT to decide on employment claims as proposed under this Employment Claims Bill is, indeed, a step in the right direction. I have a few concerns which I hope the Minister can address. First, I note that the Bill will only deal with salary-related claims, not other types of claims or grievances related to work or workplace. Sir, I also seek the Minister's clarification whether the Ministry intends to set up similar tribunals that handle workplace grievances, such as unfair dismissal or discrimination. Currently, there is no specific tribunal to address such issues. MOM has, in previous years, acknowledged that there are such cases. In January 2013, the then Acting Minister for Manpower, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, said that from 2007 to 2012, MOM received annually an average of 70 cases from female employees who felt that they have been unfairly dismissed, out of which, 70% involved pregnant women. We should not overlook the issues of unfair dismissal or discrimination. And discrimination can involve different kinds of discrimination. We should look to the examples of other first world countries, like the UK, which has an employment tribunal handling all types of claims for quite some time now. I would like to point out that employment claims disputes are often mired in the context of contending allegations of breaches of employment contracts. Unfair dismissal or discrimination could well form part of the factual matrix in some of the cases. How would the tribunal handle submissions or evidence on such issues?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. In subsection (d) of my question, could the Minister clarify whether or not in light of what has been discovered in respect of the hairline cracks, whether any additional measures were in place or any additional clauses were worked into the contract to prevent or to handle this aspect of the hairline crack problem?”
“I thank the Minister for the answers so far. I just have a quick clarification. Have we ever experienced similar hairline cracks on other trains or models and, if so, what are the models?”
“Madam, I have a clarification for the Minister. This is with regard to the provision for the AG's right to apply for non-publication order. I think given that we are going to codify this into a criminal statute, personally, I am of the view that it is inappropriate to compare this with a civil injunction. My question remains as per my speech just now which is: why does the Government wish to bar the defendant from attending the hearing of the AG's application? What harm would it do to the AG's case if it was a justifiable case to start with?”
“It also gives the Executive and the Police new powers that they currently do not have, which have a chilling effect on fair criticism and public discussion by Singaporeans. If enacted, this law runs a very high risk of causing the consequence of undermining the public's trust in the Government. Let us not bring our country a step backward.”
“This Bill, if passed, creates a huge shadow of fear hanging over Singaporeans who may otherwise have justified opinions on certain topical issues, where the handling by the Government or public body has been subject to criticism or controversy, like what we saw in the case of Benjamin Lim, which actually created awareness among Singaporeans of how Police interviews of a juvenile person are conducted and, in fact, generated positive discussion of how the procedure can be improved upon. The Government does not necessarily need to view such incidents in a totally negative way and react by clamping down on comments and discussion on the basis of ongoing investigations but should look at the positive lessons that it can learn from. Section 5 of the UK's Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides that: "A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs, or other matters of general public interest, is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion". I have heard the Minister on this section but, respectfully, I am of the view that such a provision will still be helpful to our contempt of Court laws if, indeed, the Government wants to codify our contempt of Court law. I am concerned that this Bill will curb freedom of speech and expression among Singaporeans, in particular, commentary on current issues which may embarrass the Government. Madam, in conclusion, I join my WP colleagues to oppose this Bill because common law has already provided for the protection of the administration of justice. This Bill goes beyond existing common law. It is not only unnecessary.”
“In short, according to clause 13 of the Bill, the Government in proposing to deprive the defendant of his right to defend himself before the Court makes the decision, gives the Government a low standard of proof to help the Government achieve what is effectively a gagging order, allows the defendant a higher standard of proof when he applies to set aside the order and, finally, making his failure to comply with such an order an arrestable offence punishable by up to 12 months' imprisonment or a fine of $20,000, or both. Madam, this is pure intimidation and it is an unjust and draconian piece of law. Madam, yes, former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong may have suggested codification of the contempt of Court law. The Minister has also said that it is a "crystallisation of the law". But this Bill goes far, far beyond mere codification and consolidation of the present common law on contempt of Court. Madam, I have raised various issues arising from this Bill which I regard as troubling. My party colleagues in this House have also raised other issues. If this Bill is passed, our contempt of Court law will become needlessly draconian without necessarily enhancing respect for the Judiciary. The Bill, if passed, will be entirely one-sided in favour of the Government, with no redress or remedy for any individual should the Government make a wrongful or unfair comment to the detriment of the individual.”
“If the Government wishes to criminalise acts of contempt of Court by such a procedure, then, by such provisions, the defendant must be given the right to defend himself at the hearing of the application. I have full confidence in our judges that they can make the appropriate decision after hearing the merits of each party's case. The Bill's provision for the defendant to have to set aside the order cannot be equated with the defendant's right to defend his case at the time of application by the Government. It was never his application and he had no notice of the hearing. Furthermore, by forbidding him to attend the hearing of the application where the burden of proof rests with the Government and requiring the defendant to apply to set aside the order, the Bill has cleverly and effectively reversed the burden to the defendant to discharge the order. To make matters worse, clause 13(7) mandates that the High Court must allow the Government's application if it is satisfied that the standard of proof of prima facie case has been met. This requirement is just too low and easy for the AG. If we are codifying this as part of criminal law, why do we not apply the criminal procedures' standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt"? And prima facie is still below the civil standard of proof of balance of probability, which, accordingly to this Bill, is the burden the defendant has to overcome when he applies to set aside the order. So, bizarrely, the defendant ends up having a higher standard of proof. So, why not "prima facie" for the defendant?”
“If this House were to allow such provisions, the effect, whether intended or not, will be to intimidate not just potential accused persons under this Bill, but also to cast fear on the public in respect of their right to criticise or comment in both public and private discussions. Clause 13(1) has also allowed the AG to direct an individual to refrain from publishing any matter or take down publications that could potentially be in contempt. This will be a new procedure which is currently not available. The AG is not required to inform this individual that he has applied for a Court order for non-publication. The individual concerned will only find out once the order has been granted and served on him. He cannot, therefore, be present in Court to make submissions to the judge before the order is granted. He can only apply to the Court after the order has been granted and served on him to have the order set aside. This process is complex and costly, especially to lay people. The failure to comply with the order is a criminal offence. More than that, it will also be an arrestable offence. If convicted, a maximum penalty is a fine of $20,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment, or both. Why does the Government wish to bar the defendant from attending the hearing of the AG's application? What harm will it do to the AG's case if it is a justifiable one to start with? Why does the Government wish to shut out the defendant's defences completely at the onset? On the other hand, by shutting out the defendant before a decision is reached, this is a violation of an individual's right to a fair hearing.”
“In 2008, Gopalan Nair was convicted of insulting a High Court judge by his comments on a defamation case involving the Singapore Democratic Party and the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his blog when he said that the judge "was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son, and carrying out their orders". He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. In the case of Attorney-General vs Hertzberg Daniel and others, a fine of $25,000 was awarded. Comparing the sentences awarded in the three cases I cited, with the proposed punishment in the Bill, it is clear the maximum sentences provided in the Bill are significantly higher – $20,000 or $25,000 fine compared to the proposed maximum fine of $100,000; jail of three months compared to the proposed maximum imprisonment of three years. This is definitely no mere codification of existing common law. The maximum sentences are way above current sentencing practices. Madam, clause 23 of the Bill effectively makes all offences under the Act arrestable offences. Current arrestable offences include offences like unlawful assembly or rioting, affray, rape, theft, robbery, use of criminal force on a person with intent to outrage modesty, voluntarily causing grievous hurt and so on. This is most peculiar, given the nature of contempt of Court offences. It is not necessary at all to make contempt of Court offences arrestable offences. We are not talking about violent crimes. There is no risk to the physical safety of the public.”
“Madam, I believe that for the purpose of this clause, the Court should be the sole arbiter to decide what was said by anyone, including the Government and any individual, is in the public interest or not or is contemptuous or not. The test must be an objective one allowing anyone who speaks in the interest of the public. And even if the Government insists on giving itself the sole right to comment, which I do not agree with anyway, it should, at least, allow an objective test here. Let the Courts decide, in the event of any complaints by any individual, whether the Government's comments were correct or made in good faith. I next go on to punishment. Madam, the proposed maximum punishment in the Bill far exceeds current sentencing practices. Clause 12(a) of the Bill provides for maximum imprisonment of three years and maximum fines of $100,000, or with both such fine and imprisonment together. In the State, Family or Youth Courts, the maximum punishment to be prescribed are 12 months' imprisonment and a fine of $20,000. Madam, let me just refer to three serious contempt of Court cases in recent years. In Alan Shadrake's case, the Court of Appeal noted that it was the "worst case of scandalising contempt that has hitherto come before the Singapore Courts" and yet the Courts saw fit to affirm the sentence given by the trial judge in the High Court, which was a fine of $20,000 and imprisonment of six weeks.”
“I next refer to clause 3(4) which provides that a statement made by a person on behalf of the Government about the subject matter of or an issue in a Court proceeding that is pending is not contempt under section 1(b) if the Government believes that such statement is necessary in the public sphere. I have two reservations about this provision. Firstly, this exception makes the clause a totally one-sided provision under the sub judice part of our contempt of Court law. The effect of the proposed law is this: subject to prosecutorial discretion, no one else can say anything even if there may be public interest or other legitimate reasons. In contrast, the Government has a complete and unquestionable right to do so. Secondly, the clause provides for "if the Government believes that such statement is necessary in the public interest". This is entirely subjective. What if a Government spokesperson decides to say it not in the public interest but in the narrow interest of the ruling party? What if the Government is wrong in its belief or the spokesperson makes a mistake even honest mistake, but to the detriment of some poor individual? The clause does not provide any protection or remedy to persons who may be prejudiced by such comments. It is entirely one-sided. It does not even allow the Courts to disagree or to rule on whether the Government was right or wrong. It is potentially unjust and capable of being abused. Madam, let us not forget that the Government is not the only person who can speak up "in the public interest". This is and ought to be a shared space for everyone in this country including individual citizens and civil society groups.”
“We should not be departing from the learned analysis and decision of our Court of Appeal. I next go on to clause 3(b)(1). This clause provides for the possibility of a person who "prejudges an issue in a Court proceeding that is pending and such prejudgment prejudices, interferes with or poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with the course of any Court proceeding that is pending". This test of prejudgment in this clause goes against developments in the common law world. In the UK and Australia, such a prejudgment test or principle has been rejected as being too restrictive to free speech. If introduced in Singapore, it also infringes on our constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14 of our Constitution. I am also concerned with explanation (2) in clause 3 which, in effect, meant that when considering what is capable or "prejudicing or interfering with or posing a real risk or prejudice to and interference with any pending Court proceedings", the fact that the proceedings are heard by professional judges is irrelevant. So, there can be a finding of real risk of prejudice even if, in actual fact, no competent judge would be affected by what was said. Professional judges, unlike juries, should and will not be easily prejudiced by comments made publicly or in the media. I thought that was what the earlier People's Action Party Government under Mr Lee Kuan Yew had sought to achieve when they did away with juries. Madam, I have full confidence in our judges that they will not be easily prejudiced by comments made publicly or in the media. I find the provisions in clause 3(b) to be extremely patronising to our judges.”
“Madam, I do recognise the need for us to have laws to maintain public confidence in our Judiciary or the protection of the administration of justice. However, I would like to share with this House some grave concerns I have about this Bill. Clause 3(1)(a)(2) of this Bill provides for liability for anyone who scandalises the Court by intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that includes posing "a risk that public confidence in administration of justice may be undermined". In the case of Alan Shadrake, the Court of Appeal rejected the "inherent tendency" test and accepted the "real risk" test. And let me just quote a very helpful analysis from Prof Gary Chan in his article in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, and I quote, "According to the Court of Appeal, real risk does not mean 'remote possibility'. It is also not equivalent to 'clear and present danger' or 'serious or grave risk'. Significantly, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court's description of real risk as any degree of risk above de minimis level, including 'a small likelihood'. Taking a more liberal attitude towards the law of contempt of Court than the High Court, the Court of Appeal that a 'small likelihood' of risk would 'merely be a technical' contempt that may not even attract any sanction at all." The proposed wording in clause 3(1)(a) provides for "a risk that public confidence in administration of justice may be undermined" and not just a real risk. I think the omission of the word "real" – which I now understand is intentional – makes the bar for contempt significantly lower than the real risk test. To me, it seems to be everything that the Court of Appeal has said about what a real risk test should not be.”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, in light of the expected ruling tomorrow, will there be or will Singapore be pursuing a joint ASEAN position on the expected rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration? Page: 43 Secondly, what would be Singapore's stand on the expected ruling? Thirdly, if China does, indeed, not abide by the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as it declared earlier, what would be Singapore's reaction to that? Finally, will the Minister share with this House his assessment of how China's military deployments in the South China Sea or, indeed, the position that China has been taking regarding the South China Sea may affect Singapore in respect of shipping and overflight issues across the South China Sea?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I just have a clarification regarding the answer on the status of persons allowed to drive an Uber or GrabCar. Is the Senior Minister of State saying that PRs and Work Permit holders who have the Private Hire Car Driver's Vocational Licence (PDVL) are allowed to drive an Uber or GrabCar?”
“Madam, just a point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State. Regarding the case law of the UK case that is cited by Ms Sylvia Lim, I just want to ask for the Senior Minister of State's clarification. I am not sure I understand the Senior Minister of State's answer, but I think for judicial guidance, if it is not the intention of the Government that the UK Supreme Court decision is intended to be applied, then perhaps the Government can state its position now so that the Courts will be able to follow accordingly when the Bill is passed.”
“Efforts like this should inspire all stakeholders in their promotion drives for not just arbitration in Singapore, but also in the use of SICC or Singapore Courts as a chosen choice of court for dispute resolution. One of the strengths of Singapore as a legal hub is that it can and often does provide a neutral forum for non-Singapore parties. For example, for international arbitration, Singapore is often a preferred neutral forum of choice for a dispute involving, say, two Asian parties, for example, Chinese and Indian parties or between, say, a European party and a Chinese party. We can and should tap on this for SICC, too. Certainly, with the 27 states in the EU being contracting states under the Hague Convention, European parties must, certainly, be a key object of our persuasion. Finally, with the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015, it will make sense to have reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil judgments among all ASEAN countries. Currently, such reciprocity only extends to Brunei and Malaysia. For example, our Court judgment is not recognised in Indonesia. I know that many Indonesians prefer to have their commercial disputes determined by arbitration in Singapore and frequently SIAC, and, sometimes, even when their business counterparts in the same contract are also Indonesians. We should persuade our ASEAN neighbours to follow our footsteps in signing up to the Hague Convention. Madam, with that, I support the Bill. 3.14 pm Page: 69”
“They may be more excited about the price of the contract or the operational details of the contract. Most people think that jurisdiction clauses are not something that should break a deal. This may make the task of persuading a change of mindset a little bit more difficult. We need to persuade lawyers who draft contracts for their clients; sometimes, we need to persuade lawyers to persuade their clients. From my experience, some clients are creatures of habits and may take time to be persuaded. We should also try to persuade the many international lawyers based in Singapore or in Asia to promote Singapore, whether for SICC or for arbitration. We should take a leaf from the experience of SIAC and, in recent years, SCMA, their marketing efforts, to persuade companies to use their respective house of arbitration clauses. Over time, SIAC has grown in its reputation and stature. On the other hand, SCMA has come a long way in the last few years. SCMA has become a much better known name in the international maritime circle. The SCMA arbitration clause is becoming more and more widely used in the world. In 2013, SCMA has even managed to persuade the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) to have SCMA BIMCO arbitration clause options in its many standard contract templates. BIMCO is the world's largest shipping association with 2,200 members worldwide. Its contract forms are recognised and used by shipping companies worldwide as industry standard templates. Persuading BIMCO to have an SCMA arbitration clause was no mean feat for a relatively young maritime body like SCMA. Before that, only London and New York made it.”
“The other pillar is our Courts, particularly where it involves adjudication of disputes arising from international contracts. Our High Court and Admiralty Courts have their share of landmark decisions in international jurisprudence. It is not by chance that the signing of this Convention, and now this Bill, coincides with the recent setting up of SICC in January this year. And, indeed, rightly so. By enhancing the enforceability of our Court judgments abroad, I hope that they can enhance the attraction of SICC and, indeed, Singapore Courts generally, and persuade more international commercial parties to have their disputes decided in our Courts. To this end, I am in support of the ratification of the Hague Convention and of this Bill. I hope SICC will develop to be a premier international commercial Court. The Court has already appointed distinguished and reputable judges from different countries to sit on its bench. But we also need to think about the mechanics of getting our Courts to be chosen as the exclusive choice of court in the jurisdiction clause of the commercial agreements that international parties enter into. Page: 68 We have to persuade people to put Singapore Courts or SICC into their contracts as a court of choice to adjudicate any dispute that may arise. We need to approach multinational corporations and other international companies. We can start by persuading our own Singapore companies to use our SICC or Singapore jurisdiction clauses. We need to persuade them to fight for such clauses to be used, even in the face of their international business counterparts disagreeing. Jurisdiction clause is frequently not an item of priority to consider when parties are negotiating a contract.”
“Our civil judgments may be recognised and enforceable in these additional countries and, likewise, we may recognise and enforce their courts' judgments. Hopefully, the US will ratify the Convention soon. More than that, I hope that it will be a matter of time before other parties sign up to the Convention. When more countries sign up and ratify the Convention, more countries will be added to the 39 states. The mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments among contracting states will certainly help to promote international trade. The cooperation of contracting states and the recognition and enforcement of judgments will, hopefully, help to enhance our Courts as one of the leading judiciaries in the area of commercial law. It has been said that the Hague Convention seeks to create a regime for recognition and enforcement of court judgments comparable to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly referred to as the New York Convention. The New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards and currently has about 156 signatories. Hopefully, in time to come, the Hague Convention will be as successful as the New York Convention. Over the years, Singapore has grown to be a leading forum for international arbitration in the world. SIAC has become one of the leading international arbitration centres. In more recent years, the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA) has become a leading maritime arbitration body. The Government has been trying to develop Singapore as an international dispute resolution centre. International arbitration is one pillar of this thrust.”
“Madam, I declare my interest as a lawyer with a practice involving international commercial work. I rise in support of the Choice of Court Agreements Bill. On 25 March 2015, Singapore signed the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2005. For the rest of my speech, I shall refer this as the Convention of Hague or the Hague Convention. Singapore joined the European Union (EU), the United States (US) and Mexico as the current states who have signed up to the Convention. The present Bill is being passed to ratify the Convention and bring it into law in Singapore. Choice of court agreements are clauses in commercial contracts where parties to a contract nominate the courts of a particular country to decide on any legal disputes that may arise from the contract. They are often known as jurisdiction clauses. The Convention seeks to provide uniformity in the way the courts of contracting states should decide on choice of court agreements in contracts. In particular, it provides specific rules in the way the courts of contracting states can decide on how they should rule on exclusive choice of court Page: 67 agreements. The Convention also seeks to provide uniformity in the way the courts of contracting states will decide on the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil judgment of fellow contracting states. Presently, under our present law, there are only 11 countries whose civil judgments may be recognised and enforceable in Singapore. Likewise, by way of reciprocity, our civil judgments may be recognised and enforced in the same 11 countries. With the Convention and passing of this Bill, the 11 countries will be joined by another 28 states that include Mexico and all countries in the EU, except Denmark.”
“The whole process becomes unnecessarily inefficient and bureaucratic. It also involves unnecessary expenses on the part of the patients. One would have thought that their request to transfer from private to public care can be dealt with adequately by an administrative staff at the hospital. At most, perhaps the patient only needs the attention of the doctor at the SOC who can even handle this outside his clinic hours as an administrative task done without requiring the presence of the patient. The doctor can always ask to see the patient if he has some questions for the patient. I have described the details of the process to try and highlight inefficiency and the endless bureaucratic process. Will MOH consider allowing patients to downgrade from private to public tertiary care to avoid having to seek a medical social worker to recommend the downgrade, or to skip the step of obtaining a polyclinic referral if patients are willing to go to the back of the queue and having their appointments pushed back to the end of the doctor's appointment schedule? The process could be done in a hospital itself. This would help to relieve some of the workload on the polyclinics and the medical social workers and reduce unnecessary waiting and travelling times for patients. It will also reduce queues at hospitals as well as the polyclinics. It will be a win-win situation for patients, doctors, hospitals and polyclinics.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I understand that, currently, there are two ways for patients to upgrade their outpatient status from private tertiary care to being patients in public care at SOCs at the restructured hospitals. The first is by being referred to a medical social worker who will do a financial assessment for the patient. Second is for patients to get a referral letter from the doctor at the hospital which they are instructed to take to the polyclinic. This letter will provide that the polyclinic should refer the patient back to the hospital. The first method may not be suitable for patients who do not need a financial assessment from a medical social worker to justify a downgrade. For the second method, the patient needs to see the doctor at an SOC first to get a referral letter to the polyclinic. The patient then sees another doctor at the polyclinic. At the polyclinic, such patients have to wait in the same line as other patients, who are genuinely sick, to see the doctor. The polyclinic doctor then directs patients to the referral counter for a letter referring them back to the same hospital. The polyclinic doctor may charge the consultation even though the patient did not actually require a medical examination for the referral. What is the basis for requiring two consecutive referral letters from doctors both at the SOC and at the polyclinic? Does the polyclinic doctor really have to do any medical consultations since he will know from the specialist's referral letter the purpose for the visit? From my description of the typical scenario, it would seem that much time is wasted on the part of the patients by way of waiting and transport and on the part of the polyclinic doctors having to attend to what seems essentially an administrative task.”
“Single parents need to provide themselves and their children with a roof over their heads, too. The current housing policy puts a heavier burden on single parents. They are often compelled to rent or purchase from the open market. With hefty rental rates, they may have to cut back on other expenses. Or they have to stay in an over-crowded flat with other relatives. The children suffer when there is less money for their own well-being or a less desirable environment for them to grow and learn. May I ask the Government to look at this issue from a new angle? The Government may think that they are just penalising single parents. But actually, the Government is making life harder for the innocent children of single parents for they have to grow up with more challenges and fewer resources. This should be about ensuring better and fair support for their children. These children are Singaporeans, sons will serve National Service and daughters will continue to bear and nurture future generations for Singapore. See the value, not the cost. We should acknowledge the value that these children will bring to our country, our people and our economy. When one sees the value, then the cost becomes insignificant, the stigma becomes unnecessary. Give these children the same opportunities as others, without the stigma. The Government allows singles, whether men or women, to adopt children. If MSF thinks that it is fine for singles to adopt children, then these adoptive parents and their children should be entitled to the same relevant benefits as married adoptive parents and their children. I would like to urge the Ministry to seriously consider equalising the benefits for all children. Providing Support for Single Parents”
“Madam, currently single parents are not entitled to certain benefits or Government schemes which may be available to other parents. I would like to urge the Government to consider allowing single parents and their children to have the same benefits. I will discuss three examples. 5.15 pm One, same maternity leave as married mothers. It is important for a mother to recuperate physically and emotionally from child bearing. The time a mother can share with her child is especially precious and, when managed well, can strengthen the psychological and emotional bond that a mother shares with her child. Working mothers often have to quickly get back to work while they are still struggling to find infant care assistance for their child. At the end of the day, a mother's marital status is irrelevant when it comes to the struggles I have just described. Two, Baby Bonus and CDA support. The Baby Bonus Scheme was designed to help families defray the costs of raising a child. It comprises a cash gift and a CDA. Children born out of wedlock are not entitled to this. The CDA account will certainly come in handy to help the single parent manage early childhood expenses. Last week, I asked the Minister for Finance during the Budget debate to confirm whether CDA First Step Grant is available to children of single unwed parents. The Minister did not answer this Page: 86 question, preferring to leave this to MSF to deal with in the Committee of Supply debate this week. Perhaps, the Minister can clarify. Three, shelter. A single parent below the age of 35 and their child do not form a family nucleus when applying for a new HDB flat or rental flat. They are also not eligible for housing subsidies.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification. No, I am not asking for an amnesty but I can foresee that under the new rules, perhaps, it is possible that some of the existing unauthorised e-bikes, because they were not the subject of application by their manufacturers to register for authorisation, but perhaps, these e-bikes can comply with the recommended protocols by the Panel. So, for these people, would it be possible that you can have a one-off opportunity for them to come forward to LTA to present their e-bikes for registration?”
“I have three clarifications, Mdm Chair. One is on the issue of safety protocols. I have asked about this in one of my cuts. Could the Minister please clarify what are the routine obligations of LTA to check on the MRT operators' observance of safety protocols for maintenance and operations? Second, I agree with the Minister that we should appreciate the hard work of MRT engineers and workers who are running our MRT system. They are having to cope with the situation caused by legacy issues, such as lack of timely maintenance and parts replacement in the earlier years and failure to provide timely capacity for increase in commutership, all of which can be attributed to the past leadership. Three, a question for Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo: would the Ministry consider my suggestion of allowing a one-off opportunity for current owners of unauthorised e-bikes which can comply with the new criteria?”
“In conclusion, the Panel has made many good recommendations. However, whatever measures adopted may only work if there is sufficient public education and effective enforcement, especially at the onset. There must be sufficient resources and the willingness for all authorities responsible for enforcing the use of bicycles on roads, cycling paths, footpaths and connectors to make the proposed new cycling rules work. Last but not least, may I compliment the good efforts and determination of members of the Panel led by Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. The ball is now in the Ministry's court. Page: 18 Separate Paths for Bicycles”
“On electric bicycles (e-bikes), I agree with the Panel's recommendations regarding maximum weight of 20 kilograms, maximum speed of 25 kilometres per hour and the devices' width. In fact, with these safety measures, it may be suitable to let e-bikes to be used on park connectors. We can often see people with illegally modified e-bikes on the roads or connectors. Presently, the onus is on the manufacturers to apply to LTA for their e-bikes to be authorised by LTA. However, unauthorised e-bikes are still available for sale. Many e-bikes which are in use are not authorised models. Would the Ministry consider only allowing authorised e-bikes to be sold in Singapore? In respect of the existing unauthorised e-bikes which may technically comply with the new proposed rules, may I suggest that the Ministry consider, at least on a one-off basis, to allow owners of such e-bikes to apply directly for authorisation and registration? It would be harsh to expect them to stop the use of their bikes when they can comply with the new rules. On the issue of registration of e-bikes, I think this is a good method of ensuring bike owners use their e-bikes responsibly. The Panel has also recommended against allowing e-bikes which are powered by throttle. I have received feedback that throttle may be more suitable for some users, such as the elderly, as they do not need some strength to paddle and kick in the electric power required in current authorised models. Control of speed by throttle is also more precise. As long as the maximum speed of the bike is limited, the throttle does not make the bike unsafe. Currently, PMAs, or even PMDs like e-scooters, are powered by technology which is similar to throttle. But, unlike e-bikes, safety may not be an issue.”
“Mdm Chairperson, recently, AMAP made its recommendations regarding the use of bicycles and mobility devices. It recommended that bicycles and PMDs should be allowed on footpaths. Although it is not presently allowed, we often see bicycles on footpaths. If introduced, steps should be taken to ensure that cyclists use the footpaths in accordance with any new rules and also with good practices, such as giving way and keeping left. Page: 17 I agree with the recommendations for speed limits, use of helmet and use of standard bicycle lights. Bicycle lights are important safety devices, especially in the evenings. It is often difficult for motorists to spot a cyclist riding at night without any lights until one is almost caught up with the cyclist. Whether it is bicycle lights, use of helmet or cycling on footpaths and any new measures which the Ministry should choose to adopt, I feel that if there is no effective public education and effective enforcement, especially early on after the introduction of the new measures, such measures will never be adopted by many cyclists. I would also like to suggest that for reasons of safety, there should be a rule for keeping left, whether on footpaths, connectors or on the roads. Next, personal mobility aids (PMAs). An example of PMA is the motorised device used by the elderly or people with some form of mobility constraints. But for the suggested ban on the use of PMAs on roads to work effectively and reasonably, there must be user-friendly pavements along every road; otherwise, such a ban will not be practical or fair. PMDs include electric skate scooters and kick scooters. Such scooters are regularly seen on the roads now. Again, public education, coupled with effective enforcement, will be important.”
“Mr Chairman, on 22 March this year, two SMRT staff were killed when an MRT train collided into them while they were on the tracks assisting with repair work. Our MRT system is not new. I am surprised that such a simple accident can be allowed to happen here. Not all reputable MRT operators in the world allow workers to effect repairs on maintenance on tracks while trains are in operation. On the morning of 30 March, I filed my present COS cut on Safety Protocols for MRT Operations. Later that day, LTA and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) issued a press release requiring SMRT to carry out the following measures if maintenance work are carried out during train service hours. This is to take effect from 31 March: (a) train running on sections of the track where personnel are working on must operate on manual, not automatic mode; (b) trains to cease operating on the relevant section of the track before repair personnel is allowed on it; (c) robust authentication between personnel on track and the operations control centre to verify track isolation; (d) measures for isolation to be in place until staff have left the work area and track site; and finally, (e) watchman to be deployed to alert personnel of incoming trains. I am surprised by this press release. I had expected these measures to be in place and to be the so-called standard operating procedures (SOPs). If they were, the press release would not have been necessary. I would like to ask the Minister: (a) before the accident, what the obligations were for LTA to check on the MRT operators' observance of safety protocols for maintenance and operations; and (b) after the accident, will there be any new measures for LTA to check and ensure that MRT operators follow the requisite safety procedures? Transport of the Future”
“Two years ago at the COS debates, my colleague, Mr Png Eng Huat, spoke about the reliability of our train services. Two years on, the regularity of train disruptions, the reliability of our MRT system remains a disconcerting issue. In the past 13 months, we have seen at least 50 incidents of MRT disruptions reported and almost half of such delays exceeded 30 minutes. There were 14 major MRT disruptions last year, up from 10. The most recent major one was a four-hour disruption on the East-West Line on 19 March. Just last Friday, there was another train fault on the Circle Line. In December 2015, LTA started a new method of measuring service delay. Last week, LTA reported that the average distance clocked between overall breakdowns had increased. This was cited as a statistic for rail reliability. The Straits Times article of 7 April stated that "it is hard for anyone to reconcile an improvement in reliability when major breakdowns have spiked". Indeed, whatever statistics that LTA may use, commuters who use the MRT everyday can attest for themselves the frequency of disruptions. Singaporeans should not have to get used to this regularity of disruptions. We expect our system to have far fewer disruptions. We should also be greatly concerned with the loss of productivity to all our workers and our economy arising from the man-hours lost to all delays over the last few years. I would like to ask the Minister to let Singaporeans know what steps are being taken to affirmatively abate this unacceptable regularity of disruptions.”
“Madam, in Financial Year (FY) 2013, the per capita funding per student for secondary schools was $11,400 and, for independent schools, it was $14,100. That is a 24% disparity. In FY2015, the disparity decreased to about 10%. This is a step in the right direction. But the Ministry needs to commit to 100% equitable funding for all schools. Equitable funding means levelling the playing field for neighbourhood schools so that they will have additional funds to invest in varied arts, sports and enrichment programmes. This will help develop students more holistically and improve the overall quality of schools. Currently, neighbourhood schools have less disposable funds than independent schools, putting them at a distinct disadvantage. The Ministry has a long-standing position that schools are resourced on a needs-basis, depending on programmes offered and the enrolment of the school. I have two concerns on this. One, if a neighbourhood school has lesser funding to begin with, how can the school even start to invest in, say, a niche elective in the first place to justify for additional funding? Two, neighbourhood schools do not enjoy the privileges of independent schools like higher school fees and a wealthy alumni. How does the Ministry take this into account in schools' funding criteria to ensure fairness? As we see more schools merge due to lower enrolment, it is a good opportunity for the Ministry to redistribute funding across neighbourhood schools to equalise this disparity. Yes, resources may only be a part of the solution, but it is, nonetheless a basic and critical component. I believe that equitable funding is a realistic and worthwhile objective that the Ministry should seriously consider. Improvements have been made in recent years. It is possible.”
“The reason why I am asking this question is that, as a practising lawyer myself, I find that many law graduates only choose their area of work after they start training or with their first job after they qualify as lawyers. In fact, many switch areas of work after training or after their initial job. My next question is: what if, say, a large number of students at UniSIM decide, in the course of studying Community Law subjects or having done attachments at law firms, decide that Community Law – whether Family, Probate or Criminal Law – is not their cup tea? Is it realistic to expect people to stay in the field at this early stage of their legal career or education? Finally, notwithstanding that UniSIM Law School will focus on Community Law, I would also like to seek the Minister's assurance that better efforts can be made to persuade more students of NUS and SMU to pursue Community Law in their career options. How the law schools communicate their expectation of their graduates may have a positive influence on their views towards different areas of practice. Legal Convergence Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Chair, with your permission, may I display some slides on the LED screens, please? Page: 91”
“The Fourth Committee on the Supply of Lawyers had, in 2013, recommended that the third law school at UniSIM offer a conversion course for external law degree holders or holders of law degrees which are not on the list of approved overseas universities. I understand that UniSIM will now not offer that course. I understand that these graduates may have to take the JD course instead. However, the JD course may take a much longer time. Past graduates with similar external law degrees who are qualified to practise as Singapore lawyers can probably testify that they did not need such a lengthy course to make them worthy practitioners. Many are doing well. Moreover, some external law degree holders who have yet been allowed to qualify as lawyers in Singapore are doing well as legal counsel or even practising successfully under a different jurisdiction. I would like to know what is MinLaw's position on this issue. I would also like to ask the Minister to update the House on the Government's present position on the prospect of these graduates qualifying as advocates and solicitors. New Law School and Employment Issue My second cut. As we know, in the past few years, there has been an over-supply of law graduates and a shortage of trainee positions. Recently, it was announced that the third law school – UniSIM Law School – is being set up and will focus on Community Law. I would like to ask the Minister, what is MinLaw's position on the likely implication of the additional number of graduates in the labour market, arising from the new law school. I would also like to ask the Minister whether MinLaw expects that the graduates of UniSIM Law School will only practise community law and that they are discouraged from pursuing other areas of law after they graduate.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I just have one supplementary question. The Minister mentioned that the use of SingPass may solve some of the issues, but what are they? Perhaps, he could elaborate a little bit about what are the other issues that SingPass may not be able to solve.”
“Yes, there is a precedent of Chinatown Direct services. For example, there is the Chinese New Year service from Clementi to Chinatown, plus two other direct services that run round the year. So, there is precedent for such a service. Would the Senior Minister of State consider having such a service, especially during Hari Raya?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. One is, has the Ministry conducted any assessment on the ridership patterns and bus route surveys for the route between Geylang Serai area and Bedok? The second question is this: I thank the Senior Minister of State again for the elaboration on the bus routes but certainly, there are certain areas in Bedok North and Bedok South where the residents will require to take feeder transfers. We receive quite some feedback from residents in Bedok complaining about the waiting time for both the feeder services as well as for the main transfer from New Upper Changi Road or from Bedok Interchange. Some of the complaints that we have recorded show us that, say, for example, bus service 229, the waiting time could take up to 16 minutes, and, for example, if you take bus service 229 and you transfer to bus service 2 or 28, bus service 2 takes up to 19 minutes' waiting time, bus service 28 can be up to 15 minutes. For a relatively short distance between Bedok and Geylang Serai, there is a lot of waiting and transfer time. Especially for residents during the Hari Raya period, when they have to carry a lot of purchases on their way back, this can become rather inconvenient and cumbersome.”
“As a schoolboy with questionable motor skills, I was not very good at sports like rugby or football. Rather fortuitously, I discovered the joy of distance running, and never stopped running since. What has running got to do with resilience or fortitude? You can run many miles to prepare for a marathon. You can plan to run each kilometre of your race in five or six minutes, but you will never know whether you are going to get the cramps at 33 kilometres which will throw your marathon race into disarray. Resilience is when you are down with cramps at 33 kilometres and you keep pushing to cross the finishing line and not give up. Resilience is when you are down with shin splints but still work on your recovery to get back to finish your race another day. Running, and indeed sports, mirrors life. Like marathon runners, all of us have our own race in life to run. When the chips are down, when you are struggling with your business or when you are laid off by the MNC you work with for 20 years, what do you do in the race of life? Do you just sit and despair or do you pick yourself up and press on to cross the finishing line another day? 4.44 pm”
“For example, we can encourage our young people to join co-curricular activities (CCAs) like certain uniformed groups, sports or outdoor activities clubs. I was a scrawny and introverted schoolboy. Spending six years in the National Cadet Corps (Sea) opened my eyes to adventure and teamwork. I struggled when I had to canoe round Singapore in three days. But I could not disappoint my buddy in the same canoe and, together with our friends in other canoes, we learnt to cheer and encourage each other and finished as one big team. Resilience training involved much more than a round-island Singapore canoe expedition or a one-off OBS programme. We need to re-look at the way we educate our children. We should not be happy with an education system that encourages our children to succeed by being "exams smart" alone. The system should encourage more of our young people to explore different "adventures", for example, taking time off studies or work to excel in sports or hobbies, like some of our national athletes; o r even taking time off to see the world and broaden your horizon, like what many young people in Europe do. And our young people should not fear losing out by graduating later or starting work later. We have had Singaporeans who took time off to climb mountains. They are fine examples. We also have to find a way to teach our children not to be afraid of failure but to learn to cope with failure. There must be latitude in the education system to allow this. If our children are afraid to fail, they are less likely to be adventurous. They will always go for safe options. They are also less likely to appreciate innovation and entrepreneurship. We can forget about Singapore having the next Sim Wong Hoo, not to mention Steve Jobs.”
“This is a departure from the previous practice of dollar for dollar matching which placed lower income families at a distinct disadvantage. I understand that my Workers' Party (WP) colleagues have spoken up on this in the previous Parliament and indeed other Singaporeans too. The new CDA grant with its $3,000 is certainly a good first step in the right direction. Madam, just to be sure that I understand correctly, may the Minister confirm that when it is stated that the grant is, I quote from paragraph C6, "for all Singaporean children", it includes children of single unwed parents too? I think this would be good because we should not focus on the parents, but the welfare and benefit of their Singaporean children and the value they will bring to Singapore. Next, under the section "Caring for our young", there is also the sub-heading "Building Resilience in our Youth". Under this section, the Government is making a single proposal that through a new national outdoor adventure education masterplan, it will build a new Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) campus on Coney Island. It is stated that the new OBS will be built to help our young people develop a sense of adventure, resilience and be ready to challenge themselves to be their best. Madam, I agree that the OBS programme is good for our young people and as many of our young people as possible should be encouraged to attend. I hope that the new OBS will be able to provide many opportunities for our young people to enhance their sense of adventure. A one-off participation in the OBS programme alone may not be enough to build resilience or a sense of adventure. There are other activities that our young people can be encouraged to participate to build resilience or nurture a sense of adventure.”
“The question is, how do we prevent this from happening? In other words, how do we fully utilise the working population's productive capacity? In this regard, measures announced by the Government, such as the Adapt and Grow Initiative and TechSkills Accelerator, should be able to facilitate the utilisation of the productive capacity of the working population to a certain extent. However, these measures are primarily targeted at existing workers or workers undergoing training for career conversion. It not only requires the cooperation between employers and employees, but also takes some time before the effect kicks in. For unemployed or retrenched workers, in the absence of a stable income, their entire family's financial situation may be adversely affected. If workers can be provided with retrenchment insurance, in the event of retrenchment, he can receive financial assistance by way of a payout from such insurance policy for say a few months before he finds a new job. This may alleviate any financial difficulty and lighten his financial burden. (In English): I would like to spend the final part of my speech on what the Budget has provided for our children and young people. This is found in section C of the Budget which is entitled "Building a Caring and Resilient Society". Under this section, there are various sub-headers, including "Caring for our young". I am happy to note that for Budget 2016, the Government will introduce a new Child Development Account (CDA) First Step Grant for all Singaporean children. Parents will automatically receive $3,000 in their child's CDA which they can use for their children's healthcare and childcare needs.”
“How often do you actually see people from Bedok going to Punggol or Sengkang to have dinner? There may be various reasons for this but certainly, in my view, poor town planning is one of the reasons. Mdm Speaker, may I next speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, from this year's Budget, it is evident that companies are facing difficulties and uncertainties in the business environment. Although the Government has announced measures to benefit employers and employees, for Singaporeans who are already unemployed or are facing impending unemployment, their difficulties warrant even more help. This is especially so when the unemployed is the main breadwinner of the family. Besides supporting their own family, they may also need to service their housing loan and look after their elderly parents. Many PMETs who were retrenched from their jobs with both SMEs or MNCs had to resort to driving taxis as a full-time job as they were not able to find suitable replacement jobs or, for others, who were only able to find jobs where the income offered was much less than their previous incomes, they had to resort to driving taxis on a part-time basis to supplement their incomes. This is what we call "underemployment". This underemployment situation is worrying. It means that we are unable to utilise our human resources effectively to fully develop our economy. However, our employment statistics does not reflect this underemployment situation. We do not know which category these "underemployed" people fall under in our employment statistics. We also do not know whether our published employment statistics reflect this situation. Underemployment will cause under-utilisation of the working population's productive capacity.”
“However, in my view, a town centre like the ones in mature estates, such as Bedok and Tampines, are better suited to meet the needs of residents and to create a sense of community and identity. A shopping mall can still be built but only as a complement to the town centre. A shopping mall must not compromise the businesses of the retail shops in the town centre but complement and enhance the business in the neighbourhood shops by helping to draw people to the town centre and making the town centre a lively place where residents of the town and even residents of nearby estates will want to visit and spend their time, thereby bringing business and vibrancy to the town. I am glad to note that the URA Masterplan states that the Bidadari Estate will have a wide range of amenities like a bus interchange, neighbourhood police centre, places of worship and healthcare facilities. I certainly hope that amenities, such as mini-marts, provision shops, convenience shops, and coffee shops can be built ahead of demand. I also hope that town centres with low-rise HDB shop houses can be incorporated in the plans for not just new HDB estates like Bidadari but also other new estates as well as when older estates are redeveloped. I will end this part of my speech with an anecdote. The hawker centres at different parts of Bedok, such as Block 85, Bedok North at Fengshan Single Member Constituency (SMC) and Block 511, Bedok North at Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), see many customers who are from relatively new estates like Punggol or Sengkang. I have spoken to quite a few of these customers during my visits to these markets over time. One common reason given is the lack of good dining places in Punggol or Sengkang.”
“Madam, in many HDB estates, especially the older ones, it is quite a common sight to see shops in an unfavourable facing or location doing badly. It could be due to their relative poor location compared to shops in a different location in the same estate, or it could even be due to oversupply of shop spaces in the same estate. For such shops, I hope the Minister can look into how the ROS can better assist them, or to consider how parts of the town centre where these shops are located could be redeveloped. As we provide assistance to our existing HDB shops, let us also not forget about building adequate new shops in our newer HDB estates. Residents of then-newly built HDB estates like Sengkang and Punggol experienced a lack of basic amenities and shops when they first moved in. The design of most of the void decks was also not conducive for constructing shops. One reason for this is the philosophy of building amenities like convenience shops and coffeeshops only when there is a critical mass demand. I feel that this philosophy should be tweaked to build amenities ahead of demand. This is so that pioneering residents are not deprived of amenities when they move in. You may ask how can businesses thrive when demand has not reached critical mass. That is where the Government can step in to provide reduced rents until critical mass is reached. Another way we can improve new HDB estates is to build town centres consisting of low-rise HDB shop houses to a competitive retail mix to meet the wider needs of residents. I know that in recent years, the approach has been to build a shopping mall that acts as an integrated hub for the estate.”