Desmond Lee
Singapore
“The Leadership, Enrichment, Achievement, Participation and Service (LEAPS) 2.0 is a framework for recognising student participation and achievement in secondary school co-curricular programmes.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) is mindful of the impact that rising temperatures may have on our students, teachers and officials taking part in the National School Games. Matches are scheduled only after students have had the time to train and become progressively more heat acclimatised.”
“As shared in Parliament in March 2026, the proportion of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream schools has remained stable, at around 7% of the overall student population. This stability is observed across both primary and secondary schools.”
“The Ministry recruits and assesses applicants based on merit and suitability for the teaching profession, regardless of gender. We look for individuals with a passion for teaching, a belief in the potential of every child, and who possess the values and character to make a positive difference in students' lives.”
“Over the past five years, an average of 750 teachers resigned from the Education Service annually, representing a resignation rate of around 2%.”
“MOE has also progressively strengthened open access within the Primary 1 Registration Framework through Phase 2C, which is open to students regardless of whether they have prior connections to the school. MOE had increased the number of reserved Phase 2C places from zero to 20 in 2014; and from 20 to 40 in 2022.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,698 lines we hold for Desmond Lee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 64 of 74.
“Mr Murali Pillai asked that we also include as serious harm any act that damages the economy of Singapore. The definition of essential services already takes into consideration the critical sectors that will affect the economy, should they be attacked. Mr Dennis Tan wanted to know how the amended section 11 subsection 4 paragraph (c), in the definition of "serious harm in Singapore", will be operationalised in respect of the sub-clause on "serious diminution of public confidence" in Government services or the disruption of Government functions. What constitutes a "serious diminution of public confidence" would certainly depend on the facts of the case, but there are examples in the Bill of acts that seriously diminish or create a significant risk of seriously diminishing public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of or the exercise of the power by the Government, an Organ of State or a Statutory Board. These examples include providing to the public access to confidential documents belonging to a Ministry of the Government, as well as publication to the public of the access codes for a computer belonging to a Statutory Board. Mr Thomas Chua asked for similar protection for essential services to be extended to NTP. I hope that is the correct interpretation or translation of what the Member said in Mandarin. NTP can be considered as supporting an "essential service" as currently defined in CMCA. It is also a function provided by the Government. So, depending on the actual situation, a disruption to this could be considered within the scope of "serious harm" in the Bill. Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Desmond Choo spoke about the challenges of investigating cybercrimes committed overseas.”
“As mentioned, offences in CMCA currently have extraterritorial effect if the perpetrator or the computer, programme or data was in Singapore at the material time. For example, the act of hacking a computer which was located in Singapore would already be covered by the Act, even if the perpetrator were located overseas at the material time. Mr Desmond Choo asked how cloud services and distributed databases affect enforcement and investigation of cybercrimes. Today, an increasing amount of data that is hosted on the cloud may actually be physically stored in servers located overseas. This makes cybercrime investigations more challenging. This is a challenge faced by law enforcement agencies worldwide. Where necessary, the Police will work with overseas counterparts to investigate such cases. The widening of the jurisdiction of CMCA will enable the Police to investigate cases where the criminal act resulted in serious harm or created a significant risk of serious harm in Singapore, even if the perpetrator was overseas at the material time and targeted a computer overseas. The amendment in clause 4 will allow such cases to be charged and prosecuted before our Courts. However, we have scoped the definition of "serious harm in Singapore" carefully, so that the cases we investigate and prosecute are those that have a significant impact in Singapore. These may include cases where there is illness, injury or death caused to individuals in Singapore; a disruption of essential services, such as services directly related to public transportation, banking and finance and public utilities; a disruption of the performance of any duty or function of the Government; and where there is damage to the national security, defence or foreign relations of Singapore.”
“The Government is also collaborating with industry to grow the cybersecurity workforce for Singapore. For example, under the Cyber Security Associates and Technologists (CSAT) programme, CSA and IMDA work with the industry and IHLs to attract new graduates and convert existing professionals from related fields. Our universities and polytechnics are also offering cybersecurity programmes for those keen to pursue cybersecurity education. These efforts will go a long way towards creating a vibrant cybersecurity ecosystem for Singapore. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan and Mr Dennis Tan asked if there would be other cybersecurity legislation and what its shape would be like. Members may be aware that the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) is planning to table a Cybersecurity Bill later this year. CMCA will complement this new Bill. The Cybersecurity Bill will ensure that owners and operators of Critical Information Infrastructure take proactive steps to secure their systems and networks and report incidents. It will also empower CSA to respond to cyber threats, facilitate the sharing of cybersecurity information and raise the standards of cybersecurity providers in Singapore. We will also convey various Members' suggestions and feedback to CSA and MCI for their consideration as they work on the Cybersecurity Act. But cybersecurity and cybercrime are closely related. The perpetrators of cyber incidents, which CSA would manage, might have committed an offence under CMCA in the process of carrying out the attack. Mr Thomas Chua, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Dennis Tan spoke about widening the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Bill beyond acts that result in serious harm.”
“We will consider the Member's suggestion in the review of these other pieces of legislation. Several Members highlighted the need for the private sector to level up cybersecurity by strengthening cybersecurity awareness among businesses, like growing cybersecurity expertise in the private sector. These are both focus areas in Singapore's cybersecurity strategy and are led by CSA. Cybersecurity is a collective responsibility and everyone, whether individuals or businesses, has a role to play in making cyberspace a safer place. To promote cybersecurity awareness, the Government has been running the Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign since 2011. The Cybersecurity Awareness Alliance, started in 2008, brings together Government agencies, private enterprises and professional associations to promote the adoption of essential cybersecurity practices. The Singapore Computer Emergency Response Team (SingCERT) under CSA provides advisories to help businesses pre-empt and prevent cyberattacks. Businesses are also encouraged to read cybersecurity tips and resources on CSA's GoSafeOnline website. Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Thanaletchimi spoke about keeping SMEs informed of the latest developments in cybersecurity. By the third quarter of 2017, businesses will be able to get in-person help at the SME Digital Tech Hub set up by IMDA. The Tech Hub will provide technical advice to SMEs with more advanced digital needs, such as cybersecurity and data analytics. The Hub will help to connect SMEs to ICT vendors and consultants, as well as conduct workshops and seminars to help SMEs build their digital capabilities. On their part, businesses must also recognise and treat cyber risks as important business risks.”
“Mr Murali Pillai made several points about data protection, including how the provisions in CMCA and the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) would apply. PDPA establishes various rules governing the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by organisations. It recognises both the needs of organisations to collect, use and disclose personal data for legitimate and reasonable purposes and the rights of individuals to have their personal data adequately protected from intentional misuse and unauthorised disclosure. Section 8A criminalises acts done in relation to personal information of individuals that the perpetrator knows or has reason to believe has been obtained through a computer crime. MHA's intent is to prevent the misuse of such hacked personal information for criminal purposes. For example, in a scenario where a report was received regarding the online posting of hacked personal information belonging, say, to customers of a company, the Police would investigate whether a criminal offence under section 8A had been committed by the person who posted the information. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) would look into whether the company had made reasonable security arrangements to prevent the unauthorised access of this personal information. The Police and the Commission will work closely together in dealing with such cases and ensure that there is no overlap in investigation responsibilities, while protecting the public's interest. As for Mr Murali Pillai's question on whether we should criminalise the sale of personal information obtained through unauthorised means, regardless of whether the information is hacked, this is beyond the scope of the current Bill. But depending on the circumstances, this may be covered under other laws.”
“Website owners who are aware of hacked personal information hosted on their servers are encouraged to report this to the authorities. This is no different for anyone who comes across hacked personal information. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan spoke about the prosecution not having to prove the particulars of the computer offence through which the personal information was obtained, that is, no need to prove the predicate offence when prosecuting the case of a person under section 8A. The prosecution, first, has to prove that the person involved knew or had reason to believe that the personal information was obtained by an act of hacking, in contravention of CMCA. There will be cases where it will be clear from the circumstances that the information in question could only have been obtained by hacking. For instance, if there is evidence to show that credit card numbers were purchased from a website that trades in hacked credit card information, or if there is an entire file of bank account passwords that the person downloaded from such a site. But it can be practically difficult for the prosecution to also prove the particulars of the actual hacking offence for each of the pieces of information found on the site containing information that had been obtained through hacking. In the earlier example where the credit card numbers were purchased from an illegal website, the identity of the hacker and the exact time when the hack took place may not be known, or easily verifiable. The law, therefore, needs to allow the prosecution to go after the criminal who has committed the offence of dealing in the hacked personal information, without having to also prove the particulars of the actual hacking offence, which may be impossible to fully investigate.”
“Section 8A will only apply if the personal information in question was obtained through a computer crime. Mr Ang Wei Neng referred to the recent cases of Members of this House having been impersonated via fake Facebook accounts. Hacking an existing Facebook account is already an offence under CMCA. Creating a fake Facebook account is not a CMCA offence in itself. But depending on the facts of the case, for instance, if cheating is involved, other Penal Code offences, such as cheating by personation, may have been committed. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether a journalist or a researcher dealing with hacked personal information in the course of their work would have committed an offence under the new section 8A. There is nothing wrong with the journalist reporting on the hacking incident or the researcher who works with the hacked personal information for research purposes. But it is doubtful if they would ever need to disclose the hacked personal information itself, as part of the report or research findings. For example, there is no need for them to publish details, such as hacked credit card numbers, as part of the report on the hacking incident or the research findings. Depending on the circumstances, indiscriminately making available hacked personal information may amount to an offence. Care should always be exercised where hacked personal information is transmitted, even if for a legitimate purpose. This could be done by ensuring that the information is only transmitted to trusted persons who have a legitimate reason to receive the information. Where possible, the personal information should be redacted or anonymised. Mr Desmond Choo asked if website owners have an added responsibility to watch out for unlawful information posted on their sites.”
“James Sim's actions enabled criminals to breach Singapore's immigration and border protection system. These two cases show that the amendments in this Bill are necessary to deal with the unique law enforcement challenges posed by cybercrime. The amendments to the Act will enable the Police to effectively deal with the evolving tactics of cybercriminals and the transnational nature of cybercrime. Several Members spoke about the new sections 8A and 8B of the Bill. We need to strike a balance between protecting the public interest and ensuring that legitimate cybersecurity industry practices can continue because they contribute to the overall atmosphere of cybersecurity in Singapore and elsewhere. We have, therefore, introduced exceptions in these provisions. These were drafted in consultation with stakeholders from the cybersecurity industry, telecommunications companies (telcos) and Internet Service Providers. With these exceptions, legitimate practices will not be criminalised. Mr Desmond Choo asked what "personal information" in section 8A would cover. "Personal information" is defined in the Bill. It includes information about an individual, whether true or not, which is commonly used alone or in combination with other information to identify an individual. This is a broad definition and can include addresses, dates of birth and credit card numbers. These information types are sold online often for criminal gain. Personal photographs may, depending on the circumstances, be considered personal information. Depending on the facts of the case on how the photographs are obtained and used, there may be other Penal Code offences, such as cheating by personation or harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA).”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank Members for speaking about the threats in cyberspace and for supporting the Bill. Indeed, cyberspace presents new opportunities for criminals to operate. Hacking tools are readily available and criminals can misuse these tools to carry out attacks on computer systems. Many criminals commit computer offences to illegally obtain personal information which can then be used, in turn, to carry out offences like theft and fraud. Cybercriminals are emboldened by the fact that computer offences can be carried out from overseas. I will use two previous examples of cybercrime cases to illustrate the need for this Bill. Members may recall the case of hacker James Raj. James Raj, who adopted the pseudonym "The Messiah", was convicted of numerous charges under the Act for committing a series of hacks in 2013. He was responsible for hacking the server of Fuji Xerox, the Straits Times' blog, as well as the websites of certain Government agencies. The statements of 647 private banking clients of Standard Chartered Bank, which had been stored on the hacked Fuji Xerox's server, were found on James Raj's laptop. This was hacked personal information. Various hacking tools were also found on the system. The second example, just last year, a former administrative assistant James Sim, he was charged for cracking the passwords of about 300 SingPass account holders in 2011 and selling the account holders' personal details to a China-based syndicate involved in sham Singapore visa applications. The syndicate successfully applied for 23 visas, with 20 Chinese nationals entering Singapore using these visas. Three of the Chinese nationals were later found to have committed criminal offences while in Singapore. They were charged and repatriated.”
“This prevents enforcement action from being taken against the person who was overseas at the material time and who had targeted an overseas computer. The amendment will give extraterritorial effect to these offences, if the act resulted in serious harm or created a significant risk of such harm in Singapore. The Police will then be able to initiate investigations against cybercriminals located overseas. The Police will collaborate with their foreign counterparts to provide and share evidence of such cases, with a view to extraditing these offenders to Singapore where possible and prosecuting them before Singapore Courts. As extending the jurisdiction of the Act extraterritorially is not something that we do lightly, we have scoped the definition of the phrase "serious harm in Singapore" carefully, so as to ensure that Police resources will only be used to investigate cases with significant impact in Singapore. We also ensure that we establish extraterritorial jurisdiction in accordance with international norms and standards. The phrase "serious harm in Singapore" has been defined to include, among other things: illness, injury or death of individuals in Singapore; disruption of essential services in Singapore; and disruption of the carrying out of governmental duties and functions. These would include acts, such as unauthorised access of bank account details belonging to customers of a bank in Singapore, and publication of the medical records of patients of a local hospital. Madam, in conclusion, this Bill will allow the Police to handle the increasing scale and complexity of cybercrime, as well as the evolving tactics of cybercriminals. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“To ensure that the provision does not inadvertently prohibit legitimate access by cybersecurity professionals to such tools, this is an offence only if the act is carried out with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of a computer crime. Other jurisdictions, like the UK, have similarly made it an offence to make, supply or obtain hacking tools, where there is intent to commit or assist in committing of a computer offence. Madam, clause 5 of the Bill introduces a new section 11A, which allows the Prosecution to amalgamate, as a single charge of one offence, two or more acts that are the same computer offence, and which have been committed over a 12-month or shorter period in relation to the same computer. Cybercriminals may conduct multiple unauthorised acts against a computer over a period of time in preparation for or as part of an actual attack. This amendment allows for multiple acts of a similar nature to be amalgamated as a single charge. This allows the attack to be appropriately described as a whole, rather than artificially segmented as a series of separate acts. Enhanced penalties may be appropriately meted out when the combined acts result in high aggregate damage. Madam, the second area of amendments addresses the transnational nature of cybercrime. The Internet is borderless, and cybercrimes are often perpetrated across geographical borders. Clause 4 amends section 11 to give Singapore jurisdiction over computer offences, where the act causes or creates a significant risk of serious harm in Singapore. Currently, offences in the Act apply extraterritorially only if the perpetrator or the computer, programme or data was in Singapore at the material time.”
“It is also not an offence if the individual supplied, offered to supply, transmitted or made available the personal information for a legitimate purpose and they did not know or have reason to believe that the information will be or is likely to be used to commit an offence. Ultimately, we need to strike a balance between protecting the public interest and ensuring that legitimate practices of the cybersecurity industry can continue. It would not be difficult for bona fide cybersecurity professionals to explain why they have hacked personal information in their possession. It is also not the Police's intention to demand that every cybersecurity professional provide such explanations. Rather, in the course of investigations into a CMCA offence, the Police need to have the powers to deal with individuals who are found to have such personal information belonging to others. Fundamentally, care should be exercised when dealing with personal information, especially information that has been hacked and may be subsequently used in the commission of an offence. This applies also to cybersecurity professionals. Madam, the new section 8B criminalises acts in relation to an item that is designed primarily for committing a computer crime or is capable of being used for such purposes. Such items are commonly known as "hacking tools" and will include physical devices, software, passwords and access codes. The prohibited acts include obtaining or retaining the hacking tool, and making, supplying or making available the hacking tool.”
“Currently, our law allows us to deal with the culprit who illegally obtained personal information from a computer system, or the culprit who misused the information to commit crimes, such as impersonation and cheating. However, there may be other "middlemen" individuals who may trade in such personal information but are not directly involved in the hacking or cheating offences. For example, criminals may run a website buying and selling hacked credit card information online. These individuals are currently not liable for an offence under the Act. The new section 8A, therefore, closes the gap by making it an offence to obtain or deal in such personal information. The new section 8A criminalises acts done in relation to personal information of individuals that the perpetrator knows or has reason to believe had been obtained by committing a computer crime. The act of obtaining or retaining such personal information will be an offence, as will be supplying, offering to supply, transmitting or making available that information. It is not the Government's intent to criminalise legitimate cybersecurity industry practices. We understand that cybersecurity professionals may deal with hacked personal information in the course of their work. For instance, they may transmit such information for the purpose of analysing a data breach or for the purpose of highlighting vulnerabilities in a system. We have, therefore, introduced exceptions in section 8A. It is not an offence if the individual obtained or retained the personal information for a legitimate purpose.”
“In 2016, victims in Singapore lost about S$10 million through parcel or impersonation scams involving unauthorised access to the victims' Internet-banking accounts. The culprits would usually empty the victims' bank accounts. One victim lost almost S$380,000 to scammers. These financial losses are devastating to the victims because, to many of them, these monies are their life savings intended to finance the education of their children or meant for their retirement. With our high Internet penetration rate, it is even more important that we safeguard ourselves against cybercrime and enable ourselves to take firm enforcement action against criminals who make use of the anonymity and borderless nature of the Internet to commit cybercrimes. This Bill, therefore, seeks to strengthen the operational effectiveness of the Police in dealing with cybercrime. In developing this Bill, we have taken reference from legislation in the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada. We have also consulted the cybersecurity industry to ensure that the provisions are practical and appropriately scoped. Allow me now to take Members through the key provisions of the Bill. Broadly, the key amendments seek to address the evolving tactics of cybercriminals and the transnational nature of cybercrime. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces new sections 8A and 8B to address the evolving tactics of cybercriminals. Cybercriminals may deal in personal information, such as the National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) and Foreign Identification Number (FIN) numbers, credit card numbers and residential addresses, which have been illegally obtained from a computer system.”
“This tricked victims into keying in their personal details and login credentials, which were then stolen by these criminals. The growth of cybercrime is a global phenomenon, facilitated by technological advances and the ubiquity of the Internet and smart mobile devices. Internet of Things (IoT) devices have also been attacked. Last October, an estimated 100,000 IoT devices were compromised and used to trigger a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack against the servers of Dyn, a company that controls much of the Internet's Domain Name System infrastructure. This disrupted major websites in the United States (US) and Europe, including Twitter, Netflix and Cable News Network (CNN). Massive breaches of personal information have also become commonplace. Yahoo has suffered one of the worst data breaches, with 1.5 billion user accounts compromised over 2013 and 2014. In April last year, the Philippines Commission on the Elections database was attacked. Personal information belonging to 55 million voters was hacked. Hacked personal information has been used to facilitate crimes like theft and cheating. On the dark web, hacked credit card information or passwords, as well as hacking tools, can be purchased easily and cheaply. The 2016 Underground Hacker Marketplace Report by Dell SecureWorks reported that stolen Visa or Mastercard details can cost as little as US$7 on the dark web. Hacking tools, such as Remote Access Trojans, cost less than US$10. Even hacking services are available. Hackers charge a daily rate of around US$30 to US$55 for DDoS attack services. Cybercrime imposes significant costs on individual victims and the society at large.”
“This Bill will help ensure that our legislation remains effective in dealing with the transnational nature of cybercrime and the evolving tactics of cybercriminals. Madam, in Singapore, the term "cybercrime" typically refers to two categories of offences. The first category involves traditional, real-world crimes that are perpetrated using a computer. Offences in this category, for example, e-commerce scams, are covered by criminal laws, such as the Penal Code. The second category involves criminal acts that target computer systems. Offences in this category are covered by the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (CMCA) which this Bill seeks to amend. These include criminal acts like the unauthorised access of computer material and we would commonly refer to these as acts of "hacking". This Bill will enable the Police to be more effective in dealing with this second category of cybercrime. For the first category of cybercrime, the Police will continue their current efforts, including public education and working with international counterparts. MHA is also reviewing whether changes to other laws are required to tackle the evolving nature of how criminals are using the Internet to commit crime. Madam, we have seen an increase in the number of cybercrime cases in recent years. In 2016, the Police investigated 691 cases under CMCA. This was more than double the 280 cases in 2015. Apart from the increase in volume, cybercrime cases have also increased in complexity. Cybercriminals use a variety of tactics and tools to carry out elaborate attacks. For example, the Police investigated nearly 300 cases last year, where the perpetrators hacked into victims' bank accounts. The criminals developed a fake banking App, with accompanying fake banking websites.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Madam, in recent years, cyberattacks have increased in complexity, frequency and scale. The Government has taken steps on multiple fronts to deal with such threats. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) was formed in 2015 as the central agency to oversee and coordinate Singapore's cybersecurity strategy. CSA nurtures ties with the industry and raises cybersecurity awareness through public outreach programmes. It is responsible for developing a robust cybersecurity industry and ecosystem. CSA also seeks to strengthen cybersecurity in critical sectors, such as energy and banking, and ensure effective coordination and deployment in responding to cyber threats. The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) will be setting up the Defence Cyber Organisation (DCO), which will take charge of developing the military's cyber defence capabilities. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) launched the National Cybercrime Action Plan (NCAP) last year, which sets out the Government's key priorities and strategies to combat cybercrime. The plan focuses on four areas. First, educating and empowering the public to stay safe in cyberspace through public outreach programmes. Second, enhancing the Government's capacity and capability to combat cybercrime. One key initiative was the establishment of the Police Cybercrime Command in 2015. The Command integrates the Police's cyber-related investigations, forensics, intelligence and crime prevention capabilities. The third priority area is stepping up close partnerships with the industry and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), as well as international engagement with foreign counterparts. The fourth area is strengthening legislation and the criminal justice framework.”
“Madam, each year, Town Councils already have to be audited by external auditors and the AGO has decided that individual Town Councils can suggest auditors, which have to be approved. That is the case every year. Madam, Ms Lim is confused between the annual financial audit and the audit in Part IVA. In Part IVA, there are two kinds of interventions. One is health checks, compliance reviews; and the other is where there are investigations arising from a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. In the latter, I have explained to Mr Pritam Singh that in regard of the investigation into Town Councils, it will be carried out by independent professionals. The AGO can already be triggered under the clauses in the Audit Act, as had been the case for AHPETC. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]”
“Where there is a conflict of interest, the first basis, the first thing you do, is to declare it, have it registered and recuse yourself. Do not take part in the decision because you are conflicted. But we have gone much further to say that if you are a person wielding significant influence over the MA, you are not allowed to occupy key offices in the Town Council. We have to strike a balance between a recusal process and an absolute prohibition. And I think we have taken a high-water mark.”
“There is, indeed, now ongoing, a CPIB investigation into certain individuals, or an individual in the Ang Mo Kio Town Council. That is reported in the news. What is Ms Lim's analogy extending to that case going to be? Third, MND being political because the Minister is a politician and that Town Councils are political and, therefore, the Ministry should not be a regulator. The Ministry has been the regulator for 28 years. Yes, we have more powers today to intervene, but these powers are because the unspoken compact when the Town Councils were formed 28 years ago has been broken. That compact is premised on Town Councillors and elected Members, recognising the electoral accountability, the visibility to the residents, would do what is right to fix the problems and would proactively do it, as has been wont of many Town Councils by the Government who would report to CPIB and the Police when things are wrong. But in AHPETC's case, despite its external auditor's findings, despite the AGO's report, despite the findings by the High Court and Court of Appeal, and despite KPMG's report, take the view that, "Come, the reports do not say that definitively; yes, there is a cloud, but you prove it and I will sit tight." Even today, we have to wait for an independent panel, external from the Town Councillors, to take decisive action. So, when it comes to whether MND is the appropriate regulator, I think it is. We have indicated to Mr Pritam Singh that in regard to clause 43B, it would be an independent auditor, independent individual, who will conduct investigations of all Town Councils. As to conflict of interest, Madam, we have to decide where to draw the line.”
“Madam, the first question was about whether MND was the right party to sue, what the Court found and what her lawyer said. AHTC, when it was brought to Court, was asked to respond to an application by MND to let the Court appoint an independent auditor to look into its difficulties. It was not a case of MND asking the Court to allow MND to go in. It was MND asking the Court to appoint an independent auditor. The first key point that struck us was that AHPETC or AHTC resisted that Court application as framed. The point about MND being found by the Court not to be the right party had nothing to do with this point about whether anything could be done if there was mismanagement. It was purely based on the Court's reading of whether it was MND or HDB, and ultimately, they said it was HDB. And HDB made the application to the Court of Appeal. The key point I would like this House to take away is that while Ms Sylvia Lim talked aspirationally about the need for independence, an independent oversight, what the Town Council was arguing in Court was that, where there was mismanagement of funds, nothing could be done beyond the ballot box. The second point was about civil servants and about whether they are prepared to make adverse findings against political masters, I think she has just contradicted herself. First, she says on the one hand, she said her former colleagues are people of integrity and of spine and steel, and will do what is right, as is the ethos of this Public Service. And on the other, in a backhanded way, she says they will kowtow their timorous souls. In fact, that is what she is saying. I think we object to that. Our officers are brought up with an ethos of integrity, service and excellence.”
“Madam, I said earlier that for section 43B, which is for investigations, they will be carried out by independent professionals and auditors or by AGO.”
“The Government also has a responsibility to put in place a framework of good governance and accountability, and to request for information, investigate and intervene when the trust is breached or when things go wrong. Taking a light-touch approach does not mean that the Government adopts a no-touch policy. At the end of the day, the Government's overriding considerations must be to safeguard residents' interests and public funds. This Bill will set a strong foundation for the good governance of our Town Councils, taking into account developments over the years and building on 28 years of experience operating Town Councils. I thank Members for their support. [Applause.]”
“Immediate pressures from residents at annual general meetings (AGMs) to cause Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) to kick the can down the road and avoid raising their sinking fund contributions. But when there are major estate infrastructure works, these MCSTs find themselves unable to carry them out. All residents living at that point in time at the estate will then have to cough up a tremendously large amount of money to replace, say, a lift or an old water tank. This is not how we should operate in our public estates. We should prepare and save for our collective future and not kick the can down the road, with everyone contributing their fair share towards improving our living environment rather than leave future generations to bear the costs. Madam, I would round up by outlining what this Bill means for Town Councils and our residents. First, the new provision holds Town Councils to higher standards of governance, transparency and accountability in carrying out their duties. This is the right thing to do and Singaporeans expect this of Town Councils. At the same time, the Bill puts in place a system for regular reporting and calibrated actions along with the necessary levers for enforcement. These will allow more timely and effective interventions to be taken when residents' interests are put at risk. Mdm Speaker, I believe all Singaporeans elect their MPs in good faith. But recent developments suggest that we cannot assume that MPs will always act in the residents' best interests. Our Town Councils continue to have broad autonomy and latitude in deciding how best to manage the estates under their charge.”
“However, we decided to ease in the changes for Town Councils and provide significant Government financial support to help Town Councils and residents with these costs. MND had earlier announced the set of new grants and measures to provide additional financial support for Town Councils. First, a $450 million Lift Enhancement Programme over 10 years to help Town Councils fund the cost of lift enhancements. Second, additional matching grants to match half of Town Councils' quarterly contributions to their LRFs to help Town Councils build up their LRF more quickly. This will cost over $50 million a year to the Government. Third, a Lift Maintenance Grant to help Town Councils cope with higher lift-related servicing and maintenance costs, estimated at about $13 million a year. As the chart on the screen shows, the extra funding that Town Councils will receive adds up to more than $100 million a year, or a billion dollars over the next 10 years. This is a substantial package, which is on top of the current S&CC Operating Grants that we issue to all Town Councils, and Goods and Services Tax (GST) Subvention Grants and the S&CC rebates, all of which amount to more than $120 million a year. This effectively doubles the amount of annual funding that Town Councils currently receive. While the Government has taken the lead to share significantly in the costs of maintaining and replacing estate infrastructure, this is very much a shared responsibility. Town Councils need to do their part, to plan our finances, start saving now and gradually build up our sinking funds and LRF over time. This is a responsibility for all Town Councils to do. We have seen how the dynamics have played out in private condominium estates.”
“Lift replacements require significant expenditure. Based on our projections, over the next 30 years, Town Councils will need to progressively replace about 24,000 lifts across all HDB estates, at an estimated cost of about $6 billion. Many of the costs are backloaded, occurring beyond 2025. So, therefore, while Town Councils' current sinking fund balances, which may total up to $1 billion, seem healthy, they are not sufficient to cover the cost of future lift replacements, let alone other works like cyclical repainting and replacement of other key infrastructure. Last September, we asked Town Councils to give us a sense of their financial projections over the next 10, 20, 30 years. We accept that the further you look ahead, the less reliable are your projections. The Town Councils are aware that at their current levels of income and sinking fund contribution rates, they are unlikely to have sufficient funds for the replacement costs for the long term. Some may even fall into deficits even earlier. That is why we have reviewed the Town Councils' projections and announced some changes earlier. As the chart on the screen shows, Town Councils will have to set up a dedicated LRF, which will be created by this Bill, that is ring-fenced for the replacement of lifts and lift parts. Town Councils will have to set aside a minimum of 14% of their S&CC income and Government grants into LRF and a minimum 26% to the general sinking fund. The minimum contribution rate for the LRF could have been higher if we had sized it based on a full lifecycle costing approach for lifts, a point which Mr Ang Wei Neng had asked about.”
“Madam, I thought it would be useful, since many Members asked about LRF and the long-term sustainability of lifts, to talk about this so that all of us here understand the challenges that we collectively face. As I have said at MND's COS, as our estates age, all of us, including Town Councils, will need to do more in maintaining and replacing our estate infrastructure, such as lifts, facades, water tanks and roofs, so that our estates remain liveable and safe. It is easy to build and continue to build and to agree to requests to build. It is less attractive to talk about the long tail of maintenance. But let us accept that this is an essential part of city living. Since Town Councils bear the responsibility for the eventual replacement of estate infrastructure and such expenditures could be large and backloaded, Town Councils need to take a longer-term view of their finances, plan ahead and start saving today for the expenditures. A good example is the maintenance and replacement of lifts, which many Members talked about. To keep them reliable and safe, lifts need to be maintained regularly and replaced every 25 to 30 years, depending on specifications. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will show a slide very quickly on the screen that will expedite the explanation.”
“Madam, I come now to the points raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin and I thank him for highlighting issues surrounding the handover of new developments to Town Councils. A moment ago, I talked about the handover between Town Councils. Now, I am talking about the handover from HDB of new BTOs to Town Councils. We accept there is always room to do better. HDB is continually seeking to improve its handover processes with Town Councils. As Members know, HDB has developed a handover procedure booklet which details various proposed improvements to the handover process. The proposed improvements are as follows. First, HDB will notify Town Councils of the completion of common property three months in advance, so as to allow Town Councils to plan their resources early and to arrange for subsequent meetings. After that, HDB will arrange for a briefing to the Town Council on the essential mechanical and electrical (M&E) systems that are developed. It will also arrange for a meeting with the Town Council on site one month before completion so that the Town Council can take a look at the development and raise feedback early. This draft booklet was sent to all Town Councils on 1 March this year for comments. We hope Town Councils will give HDB their feedback and work with HDB to refine the procedures, which we will continue to improve along the way. Various members also raised concerns about the performance of lifts in HDB estates. We have covered this fairly comprehensively during MND's Committee of Supply (COS) debate a few days ago. In essence, our approach is to ensure that our lifts remain safe and reliable, an approach which requires multi-pronged support from the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), HDB, Town Councils and the industry.”
“Nevertheless, if there are irreconcilable differences in opinion, MND can and has facilitated discussions between Town Councils and made itself available to mediate any differences. In the event of an impasse, the Minister can require an outgoing Town Council to furnish the necessary information to the taking-over Town Council. Madam, at the heart of it, transfers of Town Councils or transfers between Town Councils post-GE are changes of local government. Town Councils are political entities. The key, as I said earlier, is a willingness to work with each other, despite being of different partisan colours, to show maturity and to emphasise that the focus is, ultimately, on residents.”
“The guide clarifies some of the points raised today, such as the respective roles and responsibilities of the handing-over and taking-over of Town Councils and includes a checklist of the matters to be mutually agreed upon by the two Town Councils. "Mutually agreed upon" is an important phrase. We circulated the guide to Town Councils before the 2015 General Election to provide a clear and easy reference for changeover of Town Councils. The Bill allows MND to make subsidiary legislation in relation to post-election handovers between Town Councils. This is not new as MND has already been making such Town Council orders after elections. Nevertheless, there are some amendments to the existing provisions to provide greater clarity and guidance, such as, first, clarifying what happens in exceptional scenarios when the election results of some constituencies are delayed, for instance, due to the need to tally overseas votes. Second, to clarify that the Minister can require an outgoing Town Council to furnish all the necessary information and documents relating to the transfer of an estate to the taking-over Town Council. This is still work-in-progress and we will take into account Members' feedback as we continue to look into how we can better facilitate Town Council handovers going forward. Notwithstanding these improvements, the willingness of both sides to cooperate with each other on the transfer of the assets and information is key to a seamless transition. The legislative requirements have been kept broad because not every detailed situation can be anticipated, and to also allow Town Councils some latitude to discuss the issues that arise and to reach an amicable resolution that benefits their residents.”
“So, even in lift maintenance, there are both immediate maintenance and repair needs, and more long-term replacement, maintenance needs that may require it to be split into the two accounts, that is, operating and the sinking fund types of accounts. But we will take Mr Ang's suggestions and concerns into account. Let me cover some of the more technical clarifications, some of which may fall outside the scope of this Bill. Members have highlighted that on the ground and in practice, the responsibilities of Town Councils vis-a-vis other agencies and each other may be fuzzy, and good partnership is key. Not everything can be clarified in legislation, which articulates broad frames and principles. Sharp delineations of turf are often not possible and sometimes may lead to perverse outcomes. In areas where there is less clarity, I urge Members to be guided by what would most benefit residents. Where there are gaps, we will continue to work with Town Councils and Town Councillors to clarify mutual or overlapping responsibilities, as we have done with handover guidebooks, circulars and the Code of Governance that we will be developing in consultation with Town Councils. Several Members, including Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Louis Ng, among others, suggested that MND introduce more specific guidelines and rules to facilitate handovers between Town Councils following an Election. Indeed, this is important. A smooth changeover of Town Councils ensures continuity in services to residents. MND has taken steps to facilitate this. In 2013, we developed a Town Council handing-over/taking-over guide in consultation with various Town Council Chairmen.”
“I fully agree with Dr Chia Shi-Lu that we should avoid a situation where a Town Council becomes financially insolvent, as it will ultimately be the residents who will bear the consequences. This is why we have, in the Bill, focused on pre-emptive measures. By putting in place mechanisms for Town Councils to prepare their long-term financials and as a reality check for themselves to review their financial positions regularly. This puts in place early warning signals, so that a Town Council, at risk of insolvency sometime down the road, can take timely steps to improve its cash flow situation and financial health, rather than wait for the situation to become dire. But if it comes to that, MND will now have powers to make rules that prescribe steps that the Town Council should take or should not take. This includes the appointment of independent advisors to advise the Town Council on the management of its affairs, with the hope that it will turn the ship around. As for Dr Chia Shi-Lu's suggestion on having the state guarantee all the debts of Town Councils, we will have to study very carefully how the examples he cited in Germany and Canada do it, while avoiding, I hope, the problems of serious moral hazard. We certainly do not want Town Councils to take on more risks than necessary, in the belief that the Government will bail them out should things go wrong. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked whether Town Councils can be allowed not to set aside part of the Lift Maintenance Grants to their LRFs. To clarify, this grant, like other grants provided to the Town Councils, are meant both for immediate need as well as for long-term use.”
“If the Town Council, for whatever reasons, still refuses and believes that it is correct, then it should fight the matter in Court, let the judge decide as to whether the Town Council had reasonable cause to refuse to comply with the compliance order. Mr Louis Ng also asked in this regard if the Town Council would have a platform to raise concerns or reject a compliance directive by statutory authorities. In my earlier response to Ms Syvia Lim, I have shown that this, in fact, would be woven into the process. Mr Louis Ng asked about the model by-laws. To clarify, the intent to scope these by-laws narrowly is so as not to fetter the autonomy of Town Councils. Town Councils will still have autonomy to set the by-laws. But the provisions in the model by-laws would only relate to certain aspects of the management of common property, such as rules on damage of common property or the erection of unauthorised structures on common property. These are areas where although we want Town Councils to set their own rules and have flexibility, there are certain areas where we would need uniformity for national purposes. These by-laws will provide a common baseline for all Town Councils to build upon and ensure that there is some consistency in the management of common properties across towns. Town Councils can still introduce additional by-laws based on their needs as long as they are not inconsistent with the model by-laws. I would next address points made on the provisions relating to the financials of Town Councils, raised by a number of Members of this House. The Bill pushes Town Councils to regularly review their long-term financial health, and most, if not all, the Members who spoke support this intent and I thank them.”
“Some Town Councils raised questions when the Land Transport Authority stopped paying the Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) fees for traffic monitoring equipment installed on HDB rooftops. Some of these incidents were amicably resolved after MND stepped in but other cases simply failed to find proper closure. Before I end this point, I would like to address Ms Sylvia Lim's concerns that this Bill somehow gave the impression that the Town Council is always wrong and the public authorities are always right. The Town Council has a specific remit. It is a public authority, a public body constituted by an Act of Parliament, but it is also a statutory body with political characteristics, a point which I think WP also accepts. The public agencies responsible for public health, public safety and public order are national authorities charged with very important functions. The first approach will be and has always been to discuss the matter with the Town Council. For instance, if NEA needs to prevent killer-litter and needs to put in a camera, they will ask the Town Council and tell them they need to put it here for whatever reason. And if there are legitimate reasons why the Town Council refuses, then the agencies and the Town Council should discuss. And if MND needs to come in to try and arbitrate the matter, our public officers will do so. I will assure Ms Sylvia Lim that under the Bill, if a compliance order has to be issued, it will be because the agencies see that it is necessary to carry on to do what it needs to do on common property.”
“To allay Mr Darryl David's and Mr Lim Biow Chuan's concerns, the requirements for Town Councils to cooperate with public agencies, cater to scenarios where Town Councils unreasonably prevent a Government agency from carrying out its statutory duties in HDB estates. This is a rather extreme scenario and we do not expect this to be an ordinary occurrence. While there are challenges on the ground, by and large, Town Councils and agencies have worked well. The key is that parties involved maintain open communications and work together to find solutions that best serve the residents. Notwithstanding that, the amendments provide an avenue for MND to intervene when critical works are delayed or hampered at the expense of residents' safety, health and well-being. To be clear, this provision only kicks in when a Town Council unreasonably refuses to grant access or support where public health, public safety and order are at stake. One example is where HDB's lift upgrading works were once held up by a Town Council which refused to apply for the relevant licences required from the Energy Market Agency (EMA). Other statutory authorities have also met with resistance from some Town Councils on the installation of monitoring devices like surveillance cameras and the maintenance of common property. For example, one Town Council refused to allow NEA to deploy surveillance cameras to catch high-rise littering in 2014. That same Town Council also refused to repair a resident's letterbox. They wanted HDB to require all residents to sign an undertaking to maintain their own letterboxes. If they refused to sign it, the Town Council wanted HDB to hand over a copy of every resident's mailbox key to the Town Council, a request that was turned down by HDB.”
“This code is likely to take some reference from provisions in the code of governance for charities and institutions of a public character and the code of corporate governance for companies and may cover the principles and mechanisms to ensure independent decision-making and manage potential conflicts of interest. Practices that ensure robust risk management and well-documented internal controls, systems and policies to protect stakeholders' interests and to safeguard Town Councils' assets. Madam, Town Councils today generate revenue from S&CC charges that residents pay as well through activities, such as charging for the use of common property and for the use of advertising spaces in the towns. This is within the remit of Town Councils' role to manage common properties, subject to the rules. Town Councils may also invest their funds to counter inflation, subject to safeguards in the Town Councils' financial rules. So, to Mr Louis Ng's question on what "substantial trading" means, the new provision prevents Town Councils from undertaking risky ventures, by deviating from the key mandate, for example, using Town Council funds to set up and run subsidiary companies or carrying out activities under the aegis of the Town Council which are unlicensed and incurring fines on the Town Councils' purse as a consequence. As mentioned, this does not prevent the Town Councils from investing in stocks, funds and securities with advice from a qualified person or licensed body, subject to the existing safeguards in the TCFRs.”
“Madam, just by way of correction, earlier in my Second Reading speech, I mentioned that the power of composition is an existing power. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that it is not. It is a new power that gives the regulator the opportunity to have a gradation of remedies and actions and levers, depending on the severity of the infraction. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the conflict of interest provision that is embedded in the Bill which disqualifies people who have significant influence over the MA from being appointed to key officers in a Town Council. The legislation is quite clear on this phrase. But Ms Sylvia Lim talked about the GM of the Aljunied Town Council, from I think CPG or one the subsidiaries, when she took over. Back then, under the Financial Reporting Standards (FRS), CPG would not be a related party but FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) would be because of the personal direct pecuniary financial interest that both Ms How Weng Fan and the late Mr Danny Loh held in the MA. So, I think that makes it quite clear. Members also sought clarification on the code of governance. MND will introduce this code of governance in consultation with Town Councils. Amongst other objectives, the code promulgates greater transparency and accountability in Town Councils' decision-making by setting out principles of good governance and highlighting best practices that can guide the Town Councils in executing their fiduciary responsibilities and improve accountability and disclosure.”
“It was submitted six months late. I am told that the Secretariat wrote to the Town Council to point out certain errors and mistakes which were not publicly disclosed. Next, I would address questions posed by different Members on specific regulatory powers, why they were introduced and the mechanisms for enforcement. A few MPs have sought clarifications on the penalty provisions. Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked if fines against Town Councils will be paid out of Town Councils' funds. They will. This is no different from how Town Councils, companies and charities pay for fines imposed by other agencies for regulatory infringements. Mr Lim Biow Chuan sought clarity on what key decision-makers would be held personally liable for an offence. This is not new. There are penalty provisions under the existing Town Councils Act that hold key decision-makers in the Town Councils, such as the Chairperson and Secretary, liable for offences committed by the Town Council with their consent and connivance. So, there is the mental element necessary. This treatment will be extended to the new offences under the amended Act. Mr Zainal Sapari suggested making it mandatory for Town Councils to purchase professional liability insurance, to provide protection from claims arising from the negligence of key decision-makers. There is nothing to stop a Town Council from purchasing such insurance, if they see value in doing so. It is for individual Town Councils to decide. I will clarify, though, that a fine imposed on a key decision-maker, or a person purporting to act in that capacity, it is to be borne by the individual who is found liable for the offence and not be paid from the Town Council's funds.”
“Apart from the public eye, there is always the recourse of the Courts under the framework of judicial review. Ours is a system where the rule of law and any abuse of public powers are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts. I am sure Mr Singh and Ms Lim understand that very well. Madam, Ms Sylvia Lim has also, perhaps in the heat of the moment, I hope, makes very serious allegations against public servants. This has been a difficult two weeks for public officers. First, some claimed that they have no heart; and now, they have a black heart. Madam, these are public officers, Singaporeans, day in day out, working in the public interests. They understand the imperatives, they understand the need for fairness. They have their own mind and own heart and will act and do what is right. And in MND, we have a team of public officers overseeing Town Council matters fulltime. We have no doubt that these officers will carry out their duties professionally and objectively in serving the interests of residents and Singaporeans. This is what our public servants do and what this team of officers and their predecessors have been doing for the past 28 years of the Town Councils' existence. Madam, Ms Sylvia Lim has made an insinuation about public officers acting in partisan ways and she cites a number of examples, the details of which are not in our possession today. But each year, MND receives the Town Councils' submitted financial statements and gives them the opportunity to correct inconsistencies and accounting errors in their accounts, part of due diligence that MND public servants undertake for every Town Council as they are submitted to this House. In fact, this is exactly what MND Secretariat did, I am told, for AHTC's FY2015/2016 accounts yesterday.”
“When an investigation needs to be carried out, MND is prepared to appoint independent auditors and professionals to carry out investigations and they will then have to report both to MND and the Town Council, as required by law. Having said all this, perhaps let us go back and ask what really is AHTC's position on regulatory oversight? Is it, as I said earlier, a cynical fear that people who step up into politics and are elected by people into government are to be distrusted, that they will, in full glare of the public, misuse laws? Or was it really the case that Ms Lim is concerned about real problems being investigated by MND? But to really know what it is, let us look at what was said in Court, recorded by Court transcripts. This was when HDB sought the Court's intervention in 2015 to appoint an independent auditor to look into AHTC's problems and to take necessary action. HDB applied for the Court to oversee this, the Court to appoint an auditor and for this auditor to be an independent auditor, not reporting to HDB or MND, reporting to Court, acting professionally and independently. To our surprise, AHTC fought the application and tried to stop an independent auditor from being appointed by the Supreme Court of Singapore. Their lawyer argued explicitly in Court with his client behind him on AHTC's behalf that even if there was mismanagement of misspent funds, their view was that there was nothing that could be done, other than through the ballot. So, is it a willingness for appropriate independent, fair, justifiable regulatory oversight, or is there a preference for no oversight whatsoever? Madam, MND will and has always exercised its regulatory powers with due care and regard to people and the residents' public interests, as it has always done.”
“And now, at HDB's request, firm request if I may say so, and confirmed through a Court order by the Court of Appeal, AHTC has delegated decision-making on recovery of losses and further action to an independent panel comprising Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, Mr N Sreenivasan and Mr Ong Pang Thye, three eminent professionals. With the amendments to the Town Councils Act, none of these avenues and options will be abrogated. I certainly hope Mr Singh and Ms Lim do not also dispute the fairness and independence of these platforms. In fact, for the purposes of compliance reviews and investigations, under the Bill, MND can similarly appoint an independent auditor or independent panel as inspectors to carry out the review. These inspectors, as I have said in my opening speech, must report to both MND as regulator and the Town Council over whom the review or investigations are being carried out. In most instances, consistent with the political philosophy underlying Town Councils, we expect that the Town Councils will, in a light touch scenario, on their own accord, resolve issues identified by the inspectors promptly. If so, MND will not need to step in to issue any rectification order. But in any event, MND's rectification order can only reflect what the Town Council ought to have done in the first place and will not require the Town Council to take any action over and above what is necessary to bring the Town Council into compliance with the Town Councils Act and its subsidiary legislation. Madam, in the Town Councils (Amendment) Bill, there is section 43A on compliance reviews or health checks, and section 43B on investigations.”
“But these so-called independent ombudsman or independent accountants have to be appointed by somebody vested with the authority to take charge of the matter, somebody responsible for the policy of the issue. So, will the allegations of biasness and partisanship really ever end? What about officeholders of other Ministries and agencies who may be responsible for the enforcement agencies or licensing agencies which might incidentally apply to Town Councils or to members of political parties, card-carrying members or to vocal pro-Opposition members? Does Ms Lim then say you need to have one law and one system for the common man and an independent ombudsman for all these other people that she has identified? Or should we have one law of the land and one system for everybody under the rule of law, under the scrutiny of the eyes of people and the protection of the Courts to ensure that the executive powers of the Government are exercised fairly? Madam, let us look at what happened thus far for the AHTC or AHPETC saga. The whistle was first blown by AHPETC's own external auditors in 2011. The subsequent audit was carried out by AGO, an independent audit office which Ms Sylvia Lim referred to in her speech. It made very serious findings about mismanagement, improper payments, conflict of interest, poor record-keeping and internal processes. Equally serious conclusions were drawn by the Judiciary, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, when the matter was brought to Court in 2015. Pursuant to a Court order, AHTC appointed KPMG which came up with an independent report on the serious allegations of possible civil and criminal liability.”
“Because these powers, Madam, are derived from the people and given with their trust and confidence. Trust and confidence are fragile things. There is no sweeping of things under the carpet. Our history has shown that this Government, this Party, will act against wrongdoings. It will not sweep things under the carpet. The recent Ang Mo Kio Town Council case is a case in point. In the event of a conflict of interest, there are established and appropriate ways to deal with it. In the case of the Town Councils Act, if the Minister is required to recuse himself, then the other officeholders will have to step up and exercise those powers with the same good faith and with the same obligations as the Minister. And if all the officials or the MND political officeholders have to be recused, then some other Minister will have to be appointed to exercise those powers. If these powers are used in an unjustifiable manner for whatever reason, public trust will be seriously eroded. We can certainly count on members of the Opposition acting as sentinels to make allegations every now and so often, pointing to shadows, claiming conspiracies. Madam, when prosecutions are instituted, as is envisioned possibly under the Town Councils Act, where there is wrongdoing, there is also the office of the Public Prosecutor who decides if charges should be filed and the Judiciary who decides if these should stand. Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim called for the appointment of independent persons. Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned independent ombudsman. Mr Singh talked about independent auditor or accountant.”
“That when a political entity and a politician gets into power, there is no trust in his integrity, there is no trust in the voter, he must be checked, fettered, locked up, chained, that you need ombudsmen for every aspect of his work, especially when it relates to issues that may pertain to the politics of the land. First, let us all go back to fundamentals, and Mr Singh and Ms Lim are both lawyers, so they will understand this. When a government is elected by the people, political officeholders will helm the executive arm and be responsible for all the Ministries and agencies, including those that have law enforcement, regulatory and licensing powers, such as the Police, NEA, CPIB, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore and so on. And we are not unique in that sense. We are not a unique system to do this. And as a Parliamentary majority, the Government can and is obliged to make laws in the public interest. But, Madam, these powers and the laws that are made have to be used judiciously, fairly, justifiably and even-handedly. In the case of the Town Councils Act, they have to be applied across all Town Councils, regardless of political affiliation. Some Members have spoken about how the Town Councils have been fined, some other Town Councils have been censured, embarrassed by agencies when they announced what has happened in the media, even the Prime Minister's Town Council. When allegations were made, they took the first step to make a report and now CPIB is investigating Ang Mo Kio Town Council. Is there an allegation or claim that the officers of CPIB will fear investigating Ang Mo Kio Town Council? Are they timorous souls? I fear that the allegation goes a bit too far.”
“The Bill simply provides clarity on some of the existing boundaries within which Town Councils operate, for instance, Town Councils being subordinate to public laws and statutory authorities carrying out statutory duties. These minimise ambiguity on the ground. The Bill also puts in place safeguards and compliance mechanisms to enable MND as a regulator, as it has always been, to exercise more effective oversight of Town Councils on residents' behalf. In fact, some of the provisions in the Bill enhance the direct accountability that Town Councils are premised on, that is, accountability to residents and voters. For example, the Bill requires Town Councils to publish their key appointments and financial statements. Town Councils are also required to keep long-term projections so that they have an honest opinion as to whether their management style is for the short term or for the long haul. Unless the situation is so dire that the health or safety of residents is at risk, MND will not step into the shoes of Town Councils, which should do so as they are obliged to do. Madam, Ms Sylvia Lim expressed concern about the independence of MND, the appropriateness and independence of MND as a regulator for Town Councils. She says the new enforcement powers of the Town Councils (Amendment) Bill are too wide-ranging and may be wielded as a political tool because the Head of the Ministry is a political officeholder. These are serious allegations, quite unwarranted and, perhaps, are indicative of the world view from which the WP comes from.”
“And is the Town Council financially sustainable and run honestly? They can see for themselves the governance style and philosophy in action, and not just in word. So, for instance, MPs may espouse the virtues of openness and transparency but are they really practising what they preach when they run an organisation? So, in short, Madam, the Town Council framework has served as a neutral training ground for MPs and political parties, to show whether they have what it takes to run a public entity and manage an estate and, by extension, the government and the country. More than 25 years on, the objectives of the Town Council still hold true. I am glad Mr Singh, on behalf of his Party, agrees with that. At the end of the day, if the Town Council is properly managed and the estate is well run, people may continue to support you at the ballot box, and the converse is equally true. Madam, Ms Sylvia Lim said that the regulatory powers introduced in this Bill, in particular Part VIA, gave MND too much power to intervene or even interfere in the affairs of Town Councils. Allow me to reiterate the following key points. The proposed amendments do not fundamentally alter the character of Town Councils or their roles and functions. Under the revised Act, Town Councils will continue to enjoy broad autonomy and be empowered to run their estates, as they have been for the past 28 years. But these powers are not, and should not, be unfettered. Town Councils will continue to exercise autonomy to run their estates, but within broad rules laid down to ensure proper governance and to safeguard public interest. Autonomy does not give anyone a blank cheque to run down the Town Council or the estate, misuse funds, mismanage the system or break clearly established rules.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the various Members who have spoken and their comments. This House has broadly affirmed the need to strengthen Town Councils' public accountability and for the need for oversight on Town Councils. Most issues and questions raised today pertain to the details of the proposed amendments and how they will play out in practice, whereas a few were far more fundamental in nature. Let me first address the broader, more fundamental points. Both Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim emphasised that they want the Town Councils' framework to be depoliticised. I have explained at the start of the debate what the purpose of the Town Council framework is. And Mr Singh, on behalf of WP, accepts this premise. The purpose of the Town Council framework is to establish a more direct nexus between elected Town Councillors, their management of Town Councils to deliver services in our housing estates and their resident-voters, and to allow our housing estates to develop a more distinctive character of their own, with direct involvement of their elected MPs, guided by the residents. As a political framework, Town Councils allow residents to see a side of their MPs that their performance in Parliament may not be able to demonstrate. Here in this House, MPs speak, argue, persuade, contribute ideas, demonstrating their thoughtfulness, mental acuity, their oratorical skills and their sense of empathy and compassion, largely through speeches and ideas. But in the day-to-day running of the Town Council as well as the estate, people can judge for themselves a different perspective − whether their MPs can really do things or not. Is the estate clean? Are there improvements to the estate? Are there improvements to the environment?”
“Madam, I have a point of order. This is the Second Reading, the purpose of which is to debate the principles behind the Bill. I understand that Mr Zainal Sapari had raised this as an example of certain concerns that he hopes the Bill will address. I also understand the Members from WP have got different points of view, and I think that has been registered. We will just seek Madam's leave to allow the principles of this Bill to continue to be debated as part of Second Reading.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification. On his second point, he said that if the auditor or the inspector is an independent inspector, he would support Part VI A. If I were to explain to him that Part VI A allows for MND to appoint independent auditors who would then conduct compliance reviews or investigations and who are then required by the legislation to report to both MND and the Town Council, would that change his and his Party's position?”
“Madam, may I ask the hon Member for the purpose of me giving a fuller reply to his points later. Two clarifications. Firstly, with respect to his proposal for an independent person to exercise the powers under Part VI A, he was relying on what Dr Teo Ho Pin had mentioned, an independent auditor. Can he explain what his proposal is, so that I can better understand it? Secondly, he referred to a 2009 Straits Times report as well as a subsequent poll, and I quote him, "Eighty percent of the people polled wanted HDB to take back estate management". That is what the poll said, but can I understand in this House what is his position and what is the position of WP in respect of the position of Town Councils in our elected system?”