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 5 of 22.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just want to clarify with Minister Indranee and this relates to my Question No 36. In respect of persons whose NRIC numbers have been accessed and if subsequently proven that they have been accessed and downloaded by malicious actors for scams or onward sale during the period of 9 to 13 December, is the Government to prepare suitable compensation or remedy to such individuals?”
“Road traffic accidents in 2023 also caused 8,931people to suffer non-fatal injuries. According to the Annual Road Traffic Situation Report 2023, road traffic fatalities have increased year-on-year since 2020, from a low of 83 during COVID to 136 in 2023. The current number of annual fatalities are also higher than the pre-COVID numbers: 136 in 2023 versus 118 in 2019. Similarly, the traffic accident cases involving injuries have similarly increased year on year since 2020, from 6,669 in 2020 to 8,931 in 2023.”
“Grievous hurt is defined under section 320 of the Penal Code and it can include fractures or dislocations and when the victim cannot follow his or her ordinary pursuits for at least 20 days. MHA explained that the change under this Bill will better allow the Prosecution to take into account the nature of the injury caused and whether other road users share responsibility for the incident. The definition of repeat offender will also be narrowed. Currently, a motorist is a repeat offender if he or she has been convicted previously of any one of the following: dangerous or careless driving, conducting illegal speed trials or speeding. The Bill proposes that a motorist facing a dangerous or careless driving charge will only be considered a repeat offender vis-a-vis his speeding convictions only if he or she has: one, at least two prior speeding convictions in which the driver sped in excess of 40 km/h of the roads or the vehicle's speed limit; and two, at least two of the prior speeding convictions occurred within the past five years before the motorist's current driving offence. May I ask the Minister of State to explain the rationale for the limit of previous speeding in excess of 40 km/h? I ask this as some Singaporeans will regard speeding in excess of lower speed ranges, such as between 20 and 39 km/h, or 30 and 39 km/h, to be already excessive and deserving of the current minimum punishment under the present law. Mdm Deputy Speaker, such concerns are understandable. Singapore still suffers from a significant number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents. According to the SPF's Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023 report, Singapore suffered about 136 deaths in 2023 due to road traffic accidents.”
“Such concerns are understandable, especially bearing in mind recent high-profile serious road traffic accidents, such as the road accident at the junction of Tampines Avenue 1 and Tampines Avenue 4 in April 2024, where a driver failed to stop at the traffic junction and caused an accident involving five other vehicles and leading to the unfortunate death of two persons. It was also reported, more recently on 18 December 2024 that a driver was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and disqualified from driving for eight years after he pleaded guilty to three charges of causing death of a pedestrian in October 2022 by driving without due care and attention, failing to render assistance and obstructing the course of justice. The driver was previously fined $500 and handed 12 demerit points for speeding just a month before the fatal accident. The victim was a 26-year-old pharmacist and who was a Hougang resident of mine. In fact, in light of similar serious traffic accidents in recent years, some Singaporeans have asked whether we should enhance our laws to deter reckless driving and serious road accidents. Following the accident at Tampines Avenue 1, I and some other Members of this House have asked questions, and the Government addressed some of such concerns in Parliament. I trust that the Government will assure Singaporeans today that the proposed changes in this Bill will not lead to a relaxation of the law or the enforcement efforts against careless or reckless driving and result in a worsening of the present situation. Under this Bill, the prosecution will be able to proceed with a charge of causing hurt and are not grievous hurt if the victim's injuries meet the legal definition of grievous hurt.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. The Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill today proposes to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960 and to repeal the School Crossing Patrol Act of 1955. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill but I would like to speak on the proposal to remove or lower mandatory minimum sentences. Essentially, today's amendments will remove the mandatory minimum sentence and disqualification period for first-time offenders who are convicted of dangerous or careless driving offences. The mandatory minimum sentence for such repeat offenders will be halved. In justifying the reason for the amendments, MHA has, in its advisory in November 2024, explained that today's amendments were part of their regular review, the last being done in 2019. We are told that the amendment is required as there is a need to adjust the Act to balance deterrence and proportionality, which applicable sentencing principles which the Court will abide by. Importantly, MHA has explained that the changes will ensure that behaviour that is relatively less egregious is not overly penalised, while the law can still be used to penalise egregious offenders. For example, the Court will be able to give lighter sentences where other road users have also behaved irresponsibly. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think there are different responses from Singaporeans to the proposed changes. On one hand, there are Singaporeans who are concerned that the removal of the minimum sentences will represent a relaxation of the laws on careless or reckless driving.”
“We just completed Phase 1 and when we completed Phase 1 in the third quarter of 2023, we did surveys with the Friends of the PCN and the different stakeholders in the spirit of understanding that it takes time to improve human behaviour, but also to see how our infrastructure meets the needs of the people. So, I assure the Member that we will continue to do this. And I am not sure whether I heard the Member correctly. He shared about some of the pedestrian paths being used by those on personal mobility devices and cyclists. So, essentially, during our pilot Phase 1, we have segregated them and what we have seen is that people are adjusting to this whole process. When we embark on the Phase 2, we will take the feedback and comments we have heard from Phase 1 and then we will see how we can navigate this further. We will introduce more markings, especially at the start of the PCN and at the end, and we will make these at smaller intervals. And for some, it may seem that the width may be the same, but there are intersections where you would be required to understand the behaviour of people when they come together. So, it may not be as straightforward as the width. We look at various factors when we design it. So, I hope that the Member will join us in this journey to make sure that, while we are small, we maximise our land use. And what is key is this, a feedback that I heard from one of my counterparts recently is: "You are small, but you are able to use your land efficiently and the people are able to enjoy it even though they are all different types of users." So, we will continue to do this to make sure it brings goodness to Singaporeans.”
“On Question No 5, currently, some parts of the PCN have no red lane markings, while others have such red lane markings, and often it is all within a few hundred metres along same stretches. Personally, I have observed that in some of these stretches, the width may not have varied. So, I would like to appeal to NParks to consider minimising different lane markings, different segregation of paths along similar stretches of PCN, to avoid confusion, perhaps adopting what LTA is doing with path segregation along its cycling network. And may I ask, where does NParks or MND provide advisories to PCN users on the revised typology and their intended users, and can these be made more prominent on the ground? Because on the ground, I sense that people do not really understand how the division is meant to be used, even after all these years. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I can understand the issues raised by the Member. I have been very fortunate to be involved in this area of work since I was in the Ministry of Transport and I can see how things have improved significantly over the years. Members will realise that for behaviour to change, while we provide the infrastructure and we improve the markings, I think, as humans, we also will navigate this over time. I can see that the behaviour has changed over time significantly. Sir, you and I, we were in Parliament, we started together. We could see how the incidents and the behaviour of the people, with regard to how they use the PCN and even the cycling paths, have significantly changed and, that to me, is a positive move. And NParks continues to make improvements. If Members realise, we have this pilot, we do it in two phases.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a regular user of the PCN, but my Question Nos 4 and 5 actually arose from recent feedback from a Hougang resident, quite consistent with what I have raised. Just a bit of background for me asking this question, because I have spoken on this since 2018 and I have raised specifically in 2019 to 2021 regarding the new typology where, for the benefit of people listening to this, the new red lane markings for where one-third is exclusively for people on foot and about two-thirds for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, mobility scooters, strollers, e-scooters and pets on leash. I previously said that there are people walking on both lanes and not keeping left, and cyclists have to wait through the traffic, even going onto the exclusive walking lane, so to speak, because of congestion. I have previously asked for an increase in public education and enforcement efforts for safe and considerate use of the PCN. Almost four years on, with actually some of the red lanes having faded and turned to yellow again, awaiting a new coat of paint, the situation has, in my view and my resident's view, remained the same, especially during the peak hours of usage. So, in the interest of safety and greater amenity of all PCN users – and I am grateful to the Minister of State for telling us about an update, that he is reviewing this – may I appeal to NParks or the Ministry of National Development (MND) to really review how we can improve on the use of the division of the lane, so that there is greater safety and greater amenity for all users? And moving forward, may I also ask NParks to increase its public education efforts on the use of this PCN for all users?”
“In handling many neighbourhood disputes in the past, I have encountered how parties avoid attending mediation. I have araised this issue in Parliament before. I believe that mandating attendance at mediation would be a very good opportunity for all parties to resolve issues. I support this Bill. (In English): Mr Speaker, in closing, I welcome the key changes in this Bill, in particular the setting up of the CRU, which, I hope, will bring significant improvements in the way we currently manage disputes in the community. I look forward to the day the CRU will expand its operation to the rest of Singapore, including Hougang. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and concerns, I support this Bill.”
“I have spoken to residents who went to mediation at CMC and, notwithstanding what was agreed at mediation with their neighbours, there was still non-compliance in part or in full, rendering continuing frustrations and tensions between the feuding neighbours. Allowing mediated settlement terms to have the weight of an order of Court will ensure greater compliance by both parties to the mediated settlement terms to ensure better and longer-term resolution of their disputes. Mr Speaker, I have one other clarification. Regarding the proposed section 20, which amends the current provision of the Act allowing the application for transferring of claims from the CDRT to a Court, may I take the opportunity to just clarify with the Minister, in the case of such a transfer, will parties be allowed to appoint a lawyer to represent them, as is the case for normal State Court proceedings? However, if it is allowed, would this potentially lead to any injustice since parties are not allowed to engage counsel for CDRT cases and, especially if only one party is allowed to do so? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, currently, disputes between the neighbours require the residents to go to the CMC or to litigate at the CDRT, but many are reluctant to do so. I hope that the establishment of CRU will greatly improve our process of handling neighbourhood disputes. I look forward to the swift completion of the pilot programme and campaigns. I further hope that the scope of responsibilities for CRU can be expanded beyond noise and hoarding issues. I also hope that CRU can quickly expand to cover the entire Singapore, including Hougang. I also support the amendment to mandate attendance at mediation before cases are submitted to CDRT.”
“The rationale for my proposal in my speech at COS last year was that, and I quote, "As mediation at CMC requires the agreed participation of both parties to a dispute, many such disputes do not stand a chance of being resolved by mediation, simply because one of the parties opts out of mediation." I have observed from my own experience with residents' disputes that as residents know that mediation is not mandatory, many would deliberately not respond to mediation. Indeed, MinLaw shared in its paper in this Bill on 24 August 2024 that less than 30% of total cases registered at the CMC proceed to mediation because one party does not wish to participate in mediation. I have also shared that notwithstanding that mediation may not always be suitable for every dispute, I have felt that for a good number of cases, it was a good opportunity wasted for parties to try and resolve their differences during mediation when parties have the option to opt out. Mr Speaker, I am, therefore, glad that the Government will make mediation mandatory before one proceeds with CDRT proceedings. The Bill will also allow the CRU and the CMC to direct parties to attend mediation. However, the net can be cast wider to achieve more resolution if the requirement is not tethered to the commencement of CDRT proceedings. I say this because many residents are still reluctant to proceed to CDRT due, among other reasons, to the formal requirements imposed. Mr Speaker, this Bill also allows consenting parties to register their mediated settlement agreement as a CDRT order. This will carry the same force and effect as an order of Court. This is a good measure.”
“In many cases, there may be a number of tenants living within a unit. I have also, in the past, received feedback on noise issues from tenants, noise arising from tenants who do shift work or work odd hours and return to their flat each day late at night or early morning or even getting up very early in the morning to go to work. To be fair, the tenants, whether local or foreign, who may be the subject of feedback, may be a small proportion of the total number of tenants. I sense that this is often due to a lack of understanding on the part of the tenants that they might have subconsciously generated noises which may seem louder, especially during the quiet hours of the night. Besides language barrier, there are sometimes practical communication difficulties trying to get through to these individuals when agency staff are often only at work during the usual office hours. Even apart from the new provisions, I always thought that HDB can also impose obligations on owners renting out their units by way of imposing appropriate covenants at the onset when tenancy is entered into and when owners are seeking permission from HDB to rent out their units. In this way, owners can be better made to understand their responsibilities in respect of their tenants and tenants can also have a better understanding of what is expected of them, especially on the issue of being considerate to their neighbours. In the worst scenario, of course, of non-cooperation, HDB can withdraw their permission for subletting. I move next to mediation. Mr Speaker, in my speech at the Committee of Supply (COS) debate 2023, I called for mediation to be made compulsory.”
“Currently, I often hear complaints from residents telling me that there are neighbours who stop making noises after they were spoken to by HDB or the National Environment Agency (NEA). But after a while, the noises will return. Likewise, we often see feedback on high-rise littering or feeding of birds resuming after a period of deployment of NEA's cameras following earlier complaints. Mr Speaker, resources are often limited and I am not sure whether these noise sensors may be comparably limited in supply as, say, NEA's detection cameras for high-rise littering. I hope the Minister will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of such sensors for use for different cases. How would the authorities deal with recalcitrants, repeating their noise nuisance after the noise sensors have been taken off? What can be done to deter residents from playing the so-called "cat and mouse" game? Mr Speaker, after the First Reading of the Bill, an Hougang resident wrote to me, highlighting his concerns that, frequently, before a party takes a dispute to mediation, they might not have suitable evidence of the noise complained of and this would often hinder a successful or fairer mediation and resolution of the dispute. He suggested that the Government should allow residents the option to have the use of noise sensors even before they proceed with mediation. I agree with this suggestion. Clearer evidence of nuisance will provide a more accurate and objective focus for parties and their mediators and enhance the resolution process at CMC and thereafter. May I clarify whether such pre-mediation access to noise sensors can be considered? Next, on tenanted units. Mr Speaker, I welcome the new measures in this Bill to handle noise nuisance arising from tenanted units.”
“So, how will the authorities address such contending considerations? Next, on noise sensors. I hope the proposed deployment of noise sensors will greatly assist with the reduction of noise nuisance. Detection of noise and the identification of the actual source of noise are often not as straightforward as we imagine. A knocking noise that ostensibly comes from the direction of the flat above may well come from another flat or source and may have a different cause from what we imagine. During COVID-19, a persistent noise in the still hours of the night, every day, caused consternation among my residents from more than half the flats in a particular stack in a block in my constituency. Residents spoke to their neighbours above and below their flats. However, the source of noise remained inconclusive after many months, with some believing later that the sound had come from a unit to the right of the units affected. I hope the proposed noise sensors will help to improve certainty in the detection of noise and assist to eliminate or minimise noise that will cause friction between neighbours. Regarding the deployment of noise sensors by CRU officers, I know that consent is required of the owner of the affected unit. I wish to seek a clarification from the Minister whether the authorities expect the deployment of sensors to be within the complainant's flat or even in common corridors or other common areas. Will the authorities even deploy such sensors in a flat where the alleged source of noise is believed to have come from? If so, is consent required by the owner and what happens if the owner withholds consent?”
“Indisputably, noise nuisance is a very common cause of neighbours' disputes. However, there are many other types of disputes between neighbours. For example, disagreement over the placing of articles outside their homes, behavioural issues, smoking in one flat affecting another unit and so on. Next, some clarifications on the qualifications of CROs. The proposed section 13C allows the DG to appoint three types of personnel to be CROs: one, a Police Officer; two, a public officer; and three, an officer or employee of a Statutory Board. I find it odd that the criteria to be a CRO, as listed in this Bill, are not by way of specified training or qualification but as long as the person holds one of the appointments specified. May I know what is the training which a public officer or an officer or employee of a Statutory Board needs to undertake to qualify as a CRO? Certainly, there is a whole range of public employees doing a whole range of work from clerical, administrative to operations across different types of agencies. So, the criteria can be more clearly defined. I also note that the Bill proposes to give powers to the CROs to carry out a number of stated duties, such as entering residences to collect evidence, issue advisories, notices or orders and so on. Regarding entrance to residences, may I ask in what circumstances will officers enter homes to collect evidence without the need for consent from flat owners? While it is important that such entry even without the owner's approval is done judiciously and with due respect to the owner of the residence in question, on the other hand, requiring consent may, in turn, at times, frustrate or delay entry, leading to removal of evidence of nuisance creation.”
“Mr Speaker, the CDMF was started in 2014 to facilitate effective resolutions and foster a more gracious and harmonious living environment for all Singaporeans. This Bill brings in new and much needed enhancements to the framework. I have been looking forward to this Bill for some time. I support this Bill but I have some questions and concerns. First, on the CRU. Mr Speaker, under this Bill, a new CRU is being piloted to address a small minority of severe neighbour noise disputes and hoarding cases. I know that an experimental unit will start work in Tampines. Like Mr Lim Biow Chuan before me, can the Minister share some more details regarding the size of the initial team and what is the Government's current plan to scale up from the initial team? When is the department expected to operate at the national level covering all constituencies, just an estimate? On the score of matters to be covered by the CRU, Mr Speaker, I would like to seek some clarifications regarding the CRU. Firstly, I read in a Straits Times article dated 12 August 2024 that the CRU will only step in after neighbours have failed to resolve disputes among themselves, while at the same time, the CRU officers will be able to issue directions for residents to go for mediation. May I clarify what is the requirement to determine that neighbours have failed to resolve disputes among themselves before residents can seek CRU's intervention? Is it a request by one resident for mediation at the CMC which was rejected by the other resident, or a request to HDB to engage the neighbour which was unsuccessful? May I also know whether the department has intentions to expand the scope of the disputes it will cover beyond noise and hoarding and, if so, what is the estimated timeline?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, just to clarify my question: are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil spill response contractor to future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answers. I have two supplementary questions. First, what regular checks are required to be carried out by owners of oil pipelines to ensure the integrity of oil pipelines and how does MPA ensure that these inspections and checks are carried out so that repairs and maintenance can be carried out in advance of oil breakages and leakages? My second supplementary question is, following MPA's experience of the various oil spills this year, are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil response contractor to all future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?”
“Mr Speaker, I have one supplementary question. The SMF has got a limit consideration of $2,000 monthly income per person and that suitably limits a lot of seniors from applying for assistance. So, a lot of seniors who do not qualify under the SMF, they will have to fork out their own cash and the cost of the hearing aid is quite significant for seniors who are currently not working and they have to pay in cash. So, I would like to ask the Ministry to reconsider whether seniors can be allowed to use part of their MediSave for the purpose of hearing aid. And this is all the more important, especially given the recent studies that have shown the connection between hearing loss and dementia.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, I think it is quicker if I were to just read out the question: To ask the Minister for Transport whether LTA will conduct a review of the existing requirement on the maintenance regime and practices of all MRT trains, including but not limited to the old trains, such as the first-generation KHI trains. I am not asking any follow-up questions on my Parliamentary Questions relating to the cause and the faults, pending the outcome of the investigation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to thank all the workers and volunteers and all the ancillary personnel, like drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, who have helped with the service recovery in the six days during the disruption. I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given to my questions. I just have two clarifications. I had Question No 17 from yesterday's Order paper. I am not sure whether the Minister has answered that question or is this subject to the outcome of the investigation by the various bodies. Perhaps, the Minister can clarify. My second clarification, pending the outcome of the investigation by the various committees' personnel, whether any additional interim maintenance measures have been put in place or will be put in place so as to prevent similar incidents from happening in the meantime.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his answers. Just one supplementary question. I would like to ask whether SPS has a separate regime or protocol on a day-to-day basis where officers actually keep watch over the prisoners with such disabilities due to the likelihood that these prisoners may not be so upfront in voicing out any complaints of mistreatment or maladjustment. So, on a day-to-day basis, watching out for these, which is separate and distinct from the way that the officers would watch over the other prisoners. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to assure the Member that we not only look at inmates with intellectual disability, we have this holistic approach which we call the Risk-Need-Responsivity approach, whereby we look at the different profile of the inmates. If there are certain needs that need to be provided or we be mindful of, we will certainly do so. On a day-to-day basis, you will realise that even though our ex-offenders have made mistakes in their life, there is a lot of element of care within the Correctional Unit. I feel very touched sometimes when I visit the prison. Fellow inmates, they share with me, they care for one another and they look out for one another. What they want is to go through a holistic process or throughcare process of rehabilitation and reintegration for each and every one of them, including those with intellectual disability.”
“Thank you, Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether there was any vulnerability assessment and penetration testing carried out on the app prior to the deployment of the app, whether such testing was carried out regularly before the April incident? And moving forward, will MOE ensure that such testing should be carried out on a regular basis for such apps?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response. I have two supplementary questions. What are the total expenses incurred so far for the clean-up of our beaches and coastal waters? Does the Government have an estimate of the losses suffered by our locally based businesses as a result of the pollution to our beaches and coastal waters? Can the Government provide an update of the assistance which the Government has been rendering to these businesses so far?”
“Mr Speaker, a few years ago, I was among an early group of practitioners who had to complete a prescribed AML/CFT course and an AML/CFT proficiency test as part of new requirements by ACRA for anyone seeking to register or renew his registration as a Registered Filing Agent (RFA) of companies. The programme aims to ensure that RFAs are well equipped to comply with AML/CFT regulations through continuous education. RFAs have to fulfil the new requirements once every two years as a precondition for their renewal. I passed the test but, subsequently, I did not remain an RFA. However, the course and the test left me with deep impressions. In particular, while strict adherence can be onerous, if all professionals and service providers were to take the AML due diligence checks seriously and conscientiously, one would have thought that they would greatly help to prevent, or at least to minimise, the bringing in or the utilisation of funds which are subject to prohibitions under the AML regulations. So far, not much is directly disclosed about AML due diligence efforts of the bankers, property agents, lawyers or other service providers or sales agents who serve or assisted the convicted members of the $3 billion money laundering case. Will the Government share with this House what are the lessons learnt from this case, if any, in respect of the adequacy of the current AML due diligence efforts required of the banks, property agents, sellers of precious stones or metals, lawyers and other service providers involved? Mr Speaker, I look forward to the Minister's clarification. Notwithstanding the clarifications I seek, I support this Bill.”
“We read that, and I quote, "millions of dollars earned over the years from an illicit gambling ring were turned into luxury cars, extravagant watches, properties in Singapore's most lavish neighbourhoods, jewellery, designer goods, cryptocurrency and cold hard cash". And this is from a media report. So far, we read of media reports of kickbacks received by property agents or bankers taking cuts for property purchases. But the purchase of these properties required various parties or professionals who should be obligated to do AML due diligence checks required by the authorities. The money launderers could have brought monies into Singapore either by cash or by remitting monies to Singapore via their existing bank accounts. Where money was remitted to bank accounts in Singapore, the banks located in Singapore would have had the chance to do their AML due diligence searches. For those who bought real estate here, besides the banks, the real estate agents as well as the conveyancing lawyers would have been required to do AML due diligence checks, including especially on the source of funds they put up for payment. I would like to ask the Government for the banks, lawyers, jewellers or other persons who helped with or handled any of the sales transactions for the different types of properties on behalf of the members of the $3 billion money laundering ring, whether all of them carry out the necessary AML due diligence searches. Did they file any suspicious transactions report? And if so, what were the authorities' responses to such reports?”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to amend certain Acts to give effect to certain recommendations of FATF to enhance the legal framework for preventing, investigating and prosecuting offences relating to money laundering and terrorism financing and so on. The recent infamous $3 billion money laundering case has cast a negative spotlight on Singapore. It is, therefore, important that the right lessons are learnt and applied, and laws and procedures are enhanced to prevent or minimise similar cases in future. Mr Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification in respect of the amendment under clause 17 of the Bill, that is to say, section 372 of the CPC 2010. In MHA's press release of 2 July 2024, it was stated at paragraph 16 that, I quote, "...taken together, these amendments will prevent the premature release of seized properties while investigations are ongoing and avoid a situation where an absconded person evades investigations by staying out of Singapore and makes a successful claim to the seized properties because investigations have not been able to proceed". May I ask the Minister whether there has been a recent precedent, such as a recent case or precedent, such as from the recent $3 billion money laundering case, or has there ever been any precedent at all where an absconded person evaded investigations by staying out of Singapore and then made a successful claim to the seized properties as investigations have not been able to proceed? Mr Speaker, in the recent $3 billion money laundering case, we read of mostly Cambodian nationals of Chinese origin setting up residency in Singapore, buying expensive real estate, posh cars and other types of valuables and properties.”
“Thank you. My third question, has MPA contracted with T&T Salvage Asia for salvage services or for ad hoc oil spill response and recovery work? If so, would MPA consider engaging a term contractor providing oil spill response and recovery work to deal with oil spill response and recovery work instead, to facilitate better and quicker response and mobilisation?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a practising shipping lawyer in a maritime law firm. I have two supplementary questions. One, it has been reported that T&T Salvage Asia was mobilised on the same day of the collision at about 2.55 pm and it took them just over 14 hours before they were mobilised and finished laying the 200-metre booms around the Marine Honour. MPA reported on 16 June, at least, that Oil Spill Response Limited (OSRL), the largest international industry-funded cooperative providing oil spill response services, was supporting the clean-up efforts. Given OSRL's resources and expertise at hand, may I ask the Minister for Transport why was OSRL not mobilised concurrently with T&T Salvage Asia immediately after the collision to deploy the containment booms around the Marine Honour, especially with a view to reducing the deployment time and to reduce the subsequent spread of the oil spill? My second question, bearing in mind the time required for T&T Salvage Asia to mobilise for the deployment of booms and, in particular, around the Marine Honour, would MPA consider reviewing the storage, loading and mobilisation processes of all equipment, including required containment booms, to ensure that mobilisation time can be reduced? In particular, will the Government consider requiring shipping terminals at locations like Pasir Panjang, Pulau Bukom, Pulau Sebarok and Jurong Island to have containment booms within easy reach of rescue vessels for quick deployment? Mr Speaker, can I ask one more supplementary question?”
“I would like to thank the Minister for the clarifications that he has provided. I am not sure the Minister has answered some of my questions. I will just ask them again. Regarding my question, in a situation where there is no replacement operator willing to take over at short notice under Part 4, section 27DE, I asked whether LTA would be in a position to take over the operation. Currently, what is the position, whether they are able to do so or whether there is an actionable plan or roadmap towards such an outcome? Also, followed by that, I did ask the Minister whether, since some of these Class 1 bus licensees and other companies, SMRT, PSA Corp are owned by Temasek, and CAG is owned by the Government, are there some redundancies in any way arising from this Bill and whether or not there are any plans for divestment of the Government's stakes?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the Minister's replies. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I am seeking the Workers' Party's support for the Bill.”
“Likewise, for the maritime sector, clause 44 includes services, such as bunker supply and delivery, salvage operations and passenger ferry operations, in the definition of essential transport services. To what extent will the current players be affected? For example, will all the current bunker companies supplying fuel within port limits be included? What about the companies that supply bunkers also in the outside port limits area? The provisions in the Bill lack a clearer framework that outlines regulatory processes, procedures, criteria and guidelines to help the Government to regulate or operationalise in accordance with the intentions of this Bill. I hope such details will be included clearly in the subsidiary legislation after the Bill has been passed. Just now, the Minister mentioned about the advisory guidelines and I hope such guidelines will be included in the subsidiary legislation eventually. This is important, lest the lack of such details and transparency may affect investor confidence in the transport sector or in affected companies, particularly the certainty of their investment in the longer run. For the implementation of SIRA, an Office of Significant Investments Review (OSIR) was set up. Will there be similar offices set up to implement the requisite governance regime required by this Bill in all the different sector agencies involved? If so, what will be the regulatory or legislative powers granted to personnel involved? Finally, before I end, I would like to ask for the Government's assessment of the impact of this Bill on the economic competitiveness potential of the affected transportation sectors. Particularly for maritime and aviation, will there be any impact on Singapore's trade flows?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, while three out of four Class 1 bus licensees are privately owned, SMRT and PSA Corporation are owned by Temasek and Changi Airport Group (CAG) is directly owned by the Government. Given that PSA Corporation and CAG are already directly or indirectly owned by the Government, in respect of these companies, are the proposed controls on ownership and key personnel in this Bill redundant in any way? Does the Government have any plans to divest its stakes in PSA or CAG? Apart from CAG, which will be designated as a Class 1 designated operating entity, does MOT or CAAS intend to designate the companies that the Minister has mentioned in his earlier speech as Class 2 designated operating entities? May I know what are the considerations for their designation? Have those entities been consulted on the designated entity framework and have they provided any feedback on the impact that such designation might have on their operations? Does the Minister anticipate that the designated entity framework may, in any way, affect Changi Airport's attractiveness for investment from companies that may have more efficient and innovative or just different approaches to airport services? Clause 28 defines essential transport services in the CAAS Act as various services and facilities provided to support the operations at Changi Airport. Operations at Seletar Airport are thus not deemed to be essential transport services. Has Seletar been excluded from the designated entity framework because it only serves smaller aircraft or will the framework eventually be extended to Seletar as well?”
“Aside from setting out the Minister's prerogative to issue certain orders and directions to designated entities, the Bill also requires designated entities to report certain matters to the authorities. Under the Bill, designated entities are required to notify authorities of any event that could materially impede their ability to carry out their essential transport services in Singapore. Should such a situation arise in future, in the interest of transparency, will the Government be informing the public such events or even irregularities reported and the remedial actions taken? I would also like to ask the Government what is the mechanism which will be put in place to ensure that it can carry out any pre-emptive checks on operators who are reluctant to report any such events or irregularities or to ensure timely rectifications. While legislation would play a crucial role in buttressing the resilience of Singapore's public transport system, the importance of implementing operational measures should not be ignored as well. Part 4, section 27D of the Bill allows the Minister to halt a railway licensee from the provision of their services. However, in the event that there is no replacement operator willing to take over at short notice, for example, if they perceive such a move as being financially untenable, would LTA be in a position to take over the operation? In 2016, the then Transport Minister, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, suggested that LTA should enhance their operational and maintenance team to take over operations should the need arise. Would the Government clarify whether LTA currently has the capacity to take over as the operator of last resort and, if not, whether there is an actionable plan or a road map towards such an outcome?”
“Part 1, section 33D and Part 4A, section 27C of the Bill enables the Minister to issue a Special Administrative Order or other orders in relation to an entity who is a bus service licensee or a railway licensee, respectively, should the Minister be satisfied that one or more conditions be met. These conditions include, among other things, the Minister being satisfied that either type of licensee has contravened the conditions of their licence, the licensee is unable to pay its debt, or in the interests of safety, security and continuity of the provision of such services, or in the case of a railway licensee having contravened the conditions of their licence. However, the Minister could also administer such an order should they view such a decision as being in the public interest. Could the Government provide greater clarity on what public interest entails within the context of the current Bill? This is important as it will not only provide greater clarity for the management of the affected companies, it will also provide clarity and transparency to investors of such companies on the circumstances in which the Government can exercise such powers. In fact, the recently passed SIRA empowered the Government to impose controls on the shareholders and management of designated entities' interests of national security. On the other hand, the current Bill proposes that the Government be given similar powers over the shareholders and management of designated operating entities and designated entities in the public interest. Could the Minister elaborate on what would be the difference in the criteria for assessing national security and the public interest in the respective legislations?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill proposes to set up a designated entities regime for entities providing essential transport services. The Bill requires approvals for ownership controls and changes, and various notification requirements, for example, change of ownership or whether there are events which materially impede or impair the provision of such services, together with remedial directions. The Bill provides for the amendments in four key legislations relating to air, sea and land transport legislations, namely the Bus Services Industry Act 2015, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act 2009, the Maritime and Port Authority of Act 1996 and the Rapid Transport Systems Act 1995. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Bill's intention to strengthen the resilience of key firms in the air, land and sea transport sectors in Singapore, safeguarding their provision of essential transport services, enhancing resiliency and shielding them from potential national security threats. However, I have some clarifications for the Minister. To start off, may I ask the Minister to share what were some of the risks observed in the prospective critical entities that drove the need for this Bill and for the proposed amendments to the sectoral Acts? Mr Deputy Speaker, under this Bill, only fit and proper persons may be given approval to 25%, 50% or 75% controllers of designated entities. Will the Government be publishing any guidelines in the subsidiary legislation on how a person is fit and proper as required under the Act, similar to what is envisaged in the recent Significant Investments Review Act, or SIRA?”
“My second supplementary question is, moving forward, will the Government consider legislating a better protection regime for parents to recover all monies paid, including a refund to the CDA account for payments made when there are fundamental failures in the provision of blood cord services?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. A resident of mine wrote to me recently and informed me that she and her husband invested $12,000 from their children's Child Development Account for the cord blood bank services. She said that they have been paying a premium for a service that has not met expectations and, had they been aware of the situation, they would have made very different choices today. As general mid-working-class citizens, $12,000 is a significant amount of money for them. They shared that the current compensation offered by Cordlife, which includes a refund of the annual fee of $250 per year and the waiver of further fees going forward, is, unfortunately, not sufficient and it does not include the initial contract fee, hence, my initial Parliamentary Question (PQ). She told me that the token gesture does not address the fundamental issue at hand, which is the catastrophic failure of Cordlife's services, which has irreversibly compromised the viability of their twins' cord blood samples. Sir, I would therefore like to ask the Government, to reconsider whether they can assist the affected person's parents to obtain a higher level of compensation, including a refund of the initial contract fee. This is, given the quantum of claim and the likely legal costs involved, some parents may be deterred from engaging lawyers. I take the point that the Senior Minister of State has shared which is that, even if, indeed, it is the case that the company is not legally obliged to respond to any Government efforts, I wish the Government can engage the company on this front.”
“I assure the Member that we will exercise what we are provided for under the law to commensurate with the culpability of the person who caused the accident. And this is something that we want to ensure that we have – a fair and just system. I want to assure the Member this. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Second, about the road safety education effort, yes, I am happy that the Member also supports what we have been doing to promote education among our populace. We start from young. As I have shared earlier, we have published a book and we will be going around to the different communities or schools and to share with them such initiatives and the books. We have received very good support from the parents, the children as well as the teachers. Yesterday, as I have shared, I joined Senior Minister of State Sim Ann. The values that we want to promote are kindness, driving safely and we work together with the Singapore Kindness Movement on it. They came, they helped us to design the platforms that we used. This is one way where we can work together to make things better. However, every one of us has to play a part. TP can do this, LTA can do the different infrastructure and grassroots organisations like those in Senior Minister of State Sim Ann's area can do that. But if we do not play our part, then nothing will change. So, we want every one of us to play a part because that helps to save the lives of our families, including ourselves.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. The first question relates to the earlier question that my hon friend Mr Vikram has asked. And I hear the Minister of State on the answer he gave that the Government intends to keep to the same punishments as per the current law. Can I ask whether in light of the recent serious accidents, would the Government look into the possibility of refining the application of the sentencing guidelines, for example, the two to eight years, but perhaps applying more stringently as compared to the past, but still keeping within the punishment legislated? My second supplementary question is: would TP or MHA look into enhancing the current public education drive to promote safe driving, including more patience among drivers, to be more considerate to other road users? And let me elaborate on more patience. I think all of us here would have frequently experienced that whenever the light changes to green, there will be immediately somebody pressing their honk. It is almost like they want to press the honk as soon as the light turns to green. That, to me, reflects on a very general symptom of impatience among drivers, perhaps not just at the traffic junction, but generally. And I believe that this impatience is a frequent cause of accidents. Also, in terms of being considerate to the users, for example, to encourage more heavy vehicles and goods vehicles not to keep right, but to try to keep left whenever possible. Just an example. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. With regard to the first supplementary question, we look at the facts of the case.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his answers to my questions. I think the Minister of State actually mentioned that some of these information that I have sought, he said that it is not available. This Act puts the Members of the House in a very special position to come together every five years to debate and decide on the extension. So, can I humbly request that the Ministry consider providing such information on a confidential basis, just to the Members of the House, for the purpose of the debate? Number two, just one more clarification. I believe I did ask for the Minister of State to clarify, whether in the past five years, whether there have been instances where the Public Prosecutor withheld consent or raised concerns when the Ministry sought to make an order. Is the Minister of State able to address this question? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Like what I shared earlier, on why we are not able to share the details, I am not sure whether Member is aware, but the issue of gangs, secret societies, transnational crime is something that is very complex and deep. So, we need to be very careful about what we share. But I want to assure the Member that we have Singapore's interest at heart. So, it is something that I want to assure Members about. And we have shared information. We have shared information with the public, as I shared during the SPS Annual Reports. So, that is one. The other aspect is about whether the Public Prosecutor has had reservation or some differences of opinion. Like what I shared earlier, it is a process where we put up to the different Advisory Committee as well as the Prosecutor, and it is a process; upon which the Prosecutor may ask us for further details and clarification, which we have done so in the past.”
“Mr Speaker, subject to the replies to the questions and clarifications to my queries and concerns, the Workers' Party supports the extension of the Act.”
“Indeed, with the increased use of technology by our SPF and also the development of SPF over the years, will advances in our policing methods as well as technological advances help to control the age-old problems of gangs and crime syndicates and mitigate against the age-old problem of witnesses not coming forth to testify? Mr Speaker, even as the crime situation in Singapore may have been evolving and still does, it is difficult to deny that we have come very far in our crime situation since almost 70 years ago when this temporary Act was first introduced. In recent years, we have also received assurances from Minister that the number of detainees under the CLTPA have been declining. As we review the need for a renewal of the CLTPA today, for the next five years, I would therefore like to ask the Minister of State what would be the conditions or goals, the attainment of which may grant confidence to our Government to consider not seeking further extensions in future. Over time, other Members have also asked the question essentially of when we will be ready to do away with the Act. The current Minister of Home Affairs has asked a similar question even back in 1989. The then Home Affairs Minister answered as follows, and I quote, "Mr Shanmugam asked: when can we do away with it? My answer to that would be, we can do away with it when we are satisfied that both the secret society component of our objective and the drug traffic component of our objective are reduced to such small proportions that we can safely say that we do not need this to control both aspects." The Minister then went on to elaborate on his views. Almost 35 years on, I look forward to the current Minister's answer and update.”
“" MHA stated that since 2019, the Act has been used to detain or place under supervision persons heavily involved in secret society activities and leaders of organised crime syndicates, such as an overseas licensed moneylending syndicate. The same release also provided four recent cases of CLTPA recent enforcement, all involving gangs and witnesses refusing to give evidence for fear of reprisal. The Minister of State has also briefly touched on this in his speech. Indeed, the scenario shared by the Minister then and the Minister of State today are not new and CLTPA has been used in such cases relating to crime and drug syndicates and gangs for a long time and they would often involve fear of witnesses testifying in Court for fear of reprisals. Looking at the explanations given and the cases mentioned by the Minister in the recent Second Reading speeches, I do wonder whether the Government will require further extensions of the Act as long as criminal activities, such as gangs, drug and crime syndicates, unlicensed moneylending and so on, continue to persist, especially coupled with possible intimidation of witnesses. I would like to ask whether MHA has also looked at other crime control or enforcement methods or models to deal with the specified criminal activities of gangs, drugs and crime syndicates and unlicensed moneylending and to work around witness intimidation issues. How has Singapore Police Force (SPF) utilised the technological advances and deployment of technology in the Police Force, for example, use of cameras at an unprecedented scale these days to keep these crimes problems under control?”
“However, we are in cautious support for the proposed five-year extension today, subject to the Government's explanation for the Authority's use of the CLTPA in the past five years and justifications for an extension of a further five years. Mr Speaker, as the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim had articulated in the 2018 debate about the Workers' Party's support for renewals of the Act prior to 2018, she said that the Workers' Party has accepted the uncomfortable compromise that this law entails on the constitutional rights to freedom and that we did not delight in taking such a position but did so with a heavy heart. Mr Speaker, in 2018, the Minister, in justifying for an extension of the Act in the Second Reading speech, raised examples of CLTPA being used against gangs, unlicensed moneylenders, drug syndicates and global match-fixing syndicates in the years before that. He mentioned of victims being unwilling or unable to identify attackers. He also mentioned of victims or drug couriers unwilling to testify in Court for fear of reprisals. The Minister also mentioned that while the drug situation was under control, the challenges had remained significant. In the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) press release dated 7 March 2024, in respect of the First Reading of today's Bill, it was stated that the Act is, I quote, "an essential legal instrument for the Police so that they can act effectively against secret societies and criminal syndicates, such as moneylending and drug-trafficking syndicates, where prosecution is not viable because witnesses are unwilling to testify in open Court for fear of reprisal.”
“Can the Minister of State give a breakdown of the number of persons subject to CLTPA orders, organised according to the different category of criminal activities? Can the Minister of State tell this House of the persons who have been detained in the course of the last five years, what is the proportion of detainees who have served more than two years and how many of the current detainees have been in detention for more than five and 10 years respectively? I would also like to ask the Minister of State, in the past five years, whether there were instances when the public prosecutor actually withheld consent or raised concerns when the Minister sought to make an order. Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party objected to some of the amendments which the Government sought to introduce in 2018, together with a five-year extension from 2019 to 2024. Among other things, in 2018, the Workers' Party had expressed concern with the finality clause in the amended section 30 of the present Act under the then clause 3 of the Amendment Bill, which made the decisions of the Minister on detention and supervision to be final, the insertion of the Fourth Schedule which may allow Minister to bypass answering questions, such as whether a case is serious enough to justify detention, or why it is not possible to prosecute these persons in Court and also expanding the Minister's powers to police criminal activities overseas. In today's Second Reading, the Government is asking for a five-year extension of the Act and no amendment of the current Act is being proposed. I confirm that the Workers' Party objections and reservations to some of the amendments raised in 2018 remain.”
“Mr Speaker, in past renewals of the Act, there were Members who have spoken up about their concerns about the undesirable aspects of the Act and have asked the Government when we can finally do away with this Act. I am glad that we are here today to debate the extension of the Act for another five years and not more than that. In the past, some Members have even suggested that the Bill should not be a temporary one but should be converted to a permanent one. I certainly cannot agree with that. Many Members have, over the years, also spoken in agreement with the Minister of the day on variously the rationale for extending the Act to deal with the concerned crimes or criminal groups of the day. I read from Ministers' and Members' speeches in the Hansard that this ranged from secret societies, gangsterism, drug trafficking, murders, extortion and protection records to, in more recent years, money laundering, loan-shark syndicates, organised crimes and global match-fixing. There was also mention of arguably activities which are traditionally not regarded as criminal, such as prevention of strikes and lockouts, as well as communist domination. The Minister of State has also highlighted some of the recent serious cases in the past five years which required enforcement under CLTPA. I would like to ask the Minister of State of the types of cases highlighted, what is the number of detention and supervision orders granted for such type of crimes over the total number of all CLTPA orders in the last five years? I would also like to ask the Minister of State, in the last five years, since October 2019, what is the total number of people who, one, have been detained under the CLTPA and two, have been subject to Police supervision under the CLTPA?”
“Mr Speaker, this is the 15th time this so-called temporary Act, in its various forms, has come before Parliament or its predecessor for the renewal of another five years from 21 October 2024. This law puts people behind bars or restricts their movement at the order of the Home Affairs Minister. Like the Internal Security Act, it is a controversial exception to our legal justice system, which usually requires every person to be charged, tried and convicted in Court before he is imprisoned or fined for his wrongdoing. Under this Act, the Minister can, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, order the detention of a person for any period not exceeding 12 months, if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary that the person be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The Minister can also make an order for a person to be subject to the supervision of the Police for any period not exceeding three years, if he is satisfied that it is so necessary. Every order shall be referred to an advisory committee, which shall submit its recommendation on the order to the President, who has the power to confirm, cancel or vary the order given. Taking away someone's liberty either by detention or by restriction of movements and activities should not be taken lightly as they impact on liberty and freedom. Time limits for detention and supervision should also be viewed from the perspective that each order can be reviewed annually with the agreement of the President and that the recommendation of an advisory committee and on the advice of the Cabinet.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Does and will the HDB give different considerations in their assessment of the income of the self-employed to take into account that the business owner or the self-employed may not pay themselves regularly? For example, would the HDB take into account the annual income as declared to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS)? Number two, where the business income may vary. For example, even in a short period of time where a self-employed's business income trajectory increases considerably, can the HDB exercise some flexibility to look at the uptrend of the income at the time of the application?”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I have three supplementary questions. Number one, will the Government consider mandating for airlines arriving and departing Singapore to publish their percentage use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel and the emissions reduced as a result to promote greater consumer demand for greener flights? Number two, when determining the reduction of emissions from the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel, will the Government take into account the type of fuel used, as certain types of fuel, such as crop-based fuel, may lead to greater conversion of forests or grassland and release stock carbon, resulting in greater production emissions? And number three, will the Government study plans by other countries with higher Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets, such as Britain, Japan and the European Union, to raise our projected targets even further?”