Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 45.
“The Ministry does not track the number of Singapore citizens and permanent residents who pass away intestate. We encourage members of the public to make a will. Doing so provides greater assurance that their affairs will be taken care of in accordance with their wishes after their passing. A person who is at least 21 years old and of sound mind may write his or her own will or engage a third party to assist with its preparation. There are artificial intelligence (AI) tools today that might be used to assist in preparing a will. However, the public must exercise care in making their wills, whether using AI or not, and should seek professional legal advice. The Government has taken steps to make information on wills and probate more accessible. For example, we recently launched a Will Learning Tool on MyLegacy@LifeSG to help members of the public better understand the considerations in making a will before seeking legal advice. The tool generates a Will Preparation Template that can be used as a reference for legacy planning, which we hope will encourage more to go on to make wills. To be clear, this should be used as an education tool and it is not a substitute for legal advice. We will continue to improve legacy planning resources, including information on the responsible use of AI in will-making, to ensure that they remain relevant and useful, and encourage the making of wills.”
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“For online abuse, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act now provides an additional avenue for public servants and public service workers to seek relief by reporting the matter to the Commissioner of Online Safety, who can direct the cessation of the harm. Victims may also authorise others, including their employers, to make such reports to the Online Safety Commission on their behalf. The Member has suggested allowing employers to apply for POs on behalf of public service workers. We are indeed looking into whether employers can be allowed to apply for POs on behalf of their employees. We see the attractiveness of such an approach, particularly where employees may be reluctant to commence the proceedings themselves, because of time, costs or reluctance to engage with the harasser directly. At the same time, POs are remedies intended to protect an individual's personal interests. It is, therefore, generally for the individuals concerned to decide whether to commence proceedings. Any proposal to allow employers to do so raises broader questions about consent, autonomy and how such proceedings should be conducted. We will study these issues carefully in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. The Government will continue to review our laws and processes so that they remain effective and appropriately calibrated to protect our officers who serve the public.”
“Let me first emphasise that abuse and harassment of public servants and public service workers in the course of their duties is unacceptable. The Government takes such conduct seriously and agencies are committed to protecting and supporting affected officers. On the statistics sought by the Member: (a) out of a total of almost 2,000 Protection Order (PO) applications filed from 2023 to 2025, based on individual pre-filing declarations, around 2% involved public servants or public service workers applying for a PO arising from abuse or harassment received in the course of their duties; (b) in relation to Police reports concerning potential criminal offences under section 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (POHA), from 2021 to 2025, there was an average of around 720 cases of harassment against public servants or public service workers reported annually. Public sector employers are committed to providing a safe workplace and supporting all officers. Agencies have reporting and escalation channels, provide welfare and counselling support and, where appropriate, assist officers in making police reports. Where criminal offences are disclosed, offenders may be investigated and prosecuted. Under POHA, those who harass public servants or public service workers in the course of their duties may be subject to criminal liability, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 12 months. Separately, victims may seek civil remedies under POHA. These include POs to prohibit further harassment, as well as claims for monetary damages.”
“A strong legal profession underpins a strong economy and a cohesive society. The goal is not to lower standards, but to sustain excellence in a way that allows lawyers to build long and fulfilling careers, and enables the legal sector to continue to flourish.”
“We are, therefore, approaching AI not merely as a productivity tool, but as a force that will reshape training, mentorship, career pathways and workplace culture, in fact, the very practice of law. As we have explained previously, MinLaw is, therefore, looking at this question of AI adoption at a more fundamental level, including whether the structure of legal training from law school through practice needs to evolve to prepare lawyers for this changing landscape. MinLaw remains committed to supporting lawyers and law firms in strengthening their resilience through grants, training and development, and international platforms, all of which contribute towards reinforcing Singapore's overall legal value proposition. MinLaw will continue to work with stakeholders to advance the development of a first-class legal system even as we navigate an increasingly competitive and disruptive global environment. This also includes examining areas, such as how legal work is charged, something that Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh2 raised. The traditional billable-hour model is already being challenged and may well have to evolve further in response to shifting market demands in order for us to remain competitive. We are aware that the intensifying competition will place greater demands on our lawyers. In such an environment, we must reaffirm the deeper purpose and enduring values of the legal profession – as one that is not merely a career, but a true calling grounded in service, integrity and justice. The issues raised by Members today all point to the same underlying question: what kind of legal profession do we want Singapore to have and what are we prepared to do to build it? The answer matters beyond the profession itself.”
“MinLaw has implemented various schemes to equip and support lawyers and law firms to navigate modern legal practice, examples include the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation initiative, in relation to implementing artificial intelligence (AI) and change management; and study awards for civil law. MinLaw has also worked on initiatives, such as exchange programmes and international networks, that provide lawyers with opportunities to interact with the international legal community, thereby raising their profile and reputation to put them in a better position to compete for cross-border legal work. These complement existing well-being initiatives by the Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law as previously shared in the May PQ reply. The Future of Legal Profession Committee will, together with our stakeholders, continue to look into these issues, including rethinking how legal work is organised and produced, how lawyers are developed and supported, and how sustainable careers can be built in today's practice. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the impact of AI on the stresses lawyers face. The reality is that AI is here to stay and we will have to adopt it and use it to our individual and collective advantage. How well we manage the transition and adoption of AI will dictate how the legal industry progresses. AI has the potential to reduce the burden of routine, time-consuming tasks, but it also raises client expectations, compresses timelines and creates genuine anxiety about the future shape of legal careers. If not managed thoughtfully, efficiency gains could be absorbed entirely by increased demands, nullifying any potential upside that AI could bring to improving the sustainability of legal work.”
“In order to tackle this, we should heed the Hon Chief Justice Menon’s exhortation that, "the conduct of leaders, the expectations they set and the culture they foster will play a decisive role in shaping how lawyers experience practice, how they develop and whether they remain in the profession."3 Ms Diana Pang and Mr Christopher de Souza also asked about retention and the long-term sustainability of the profession. As shared in a reply to PQs in May, attrition from legal practice has remained stable over the last decade. That remains the overall picture. The reasons for lawyers leaving are varied – workload, workplace culture, inadequate supervision or mentorship and attractive opportunities elsewhere. Any serious effort at retention has to grapple with this range of reasons. At the same time, we should recognise that legal practice is inherently demanding. Whilst pressures, such as tight timelines, clients demands and economic pressures, are not unique to the practice of law, what differs is the privilege of advocating for another person, of holding someone's livelihood, liberty or future in your hands. Many have entered the profession precisely because they find meaning in it and are willing to take on the responsibility for it and the stresses that come with it. The question is, therefore, not how to make the profession easier, but how to make it sustainable, so that those who are drawn to it for the right reasons are not driven out by the wrong ones. I would add that even as we work on the measures above, MinLaw has been focussed on programs and schemes to help the profession level up as a whole, especially those who might need more support.”
“It had previously set up a Judicial Complaints Process, which lawyers can use, and the efficacy of this channel can be something which the Committee reviews. I expect the Joint Committee to also carefully consider issues including the concern raised by Ms Diana Pang, about how medical conditions and other matters can be accommodated in Court proceedings, whilst at the same time ensuring that the proper administration of justice is not compromised. Ultimately, the Judiciary has a duty to ensure that justice is meted out fairly to all litigants. Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Hany Soh have raised concerns about toxic workplace culture, harassment and bullying. Let me say clearly that workplace harassment will not be tolerated. Existing protections, such as the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment, applies with equal rigour across all sectors, including the legal sector. The Workplace Fairness Act, when it comes into force in 2027, will further strengthen these protections. The Law Society has also issued a Guidance Note and Toolkit on Workplace Harassment and Bullying Prevention in October 2025. MinLaw will continue to work with the Law Society and other stakeholders to consider whether additional options may allow lawyers to raise concerns without fear of professional repercussions. That said, we accept that the Study reflects a more specific concern – that lawyers, especially those who are more junior, may feel unable to raise concerns about harmful conduct in workplaces or in court without putting their careers at risk. Formal frameworks do not, by themselves, address that practical reality. For many lawyers, the professional cost of coming forward may feel too high and that is a concern we should look closely into.”
“The Study surveyed more than 800 lawyers who gave their views on the difficulties they faced. Some of them reportedly left the legal profession because of these difficulties. This included instances of excessive workload, and a toxic and difficult workplace culture. There were also accounts of young lawyers who actively avoided litigation practice after encountering harsh and demoralising interactions in the Courts and did not feel that there was a safe mechanism for them to provide feedback to judicial conduct. Lawyers also felt the pressure of a fast-paced legal practice as well as demands from clients and raised questions around whether legal education adequately prepared them for practice. Overall, the survey has revealed some troubling findings, and they must be taken seriously with decisive changes made where appropriate. I am encouraged that the Judiciary and the Law Society have responded swiftly and have established a Joint Committee to review existing dialogue mechanisms and feedback channels. The Committee will also examine whether case management practices and timeline expectations are appropriately calibrated to the realities of practice today, and to ensure that sustainability of practice can be maintained. MinLaw welcomes this and will work closely with the committee to support and implement any recommendations. Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Hany Soh asked whether there should be an official channel for feedback on judicial conduct and whether an independent audit of Bench-Bar interactions should be commissioned. It bears noting that the Judiciary is an independent institution, and it is for the Courts to manage and regulate its own procedure.”
“My response will address Question Nos 26 to 31 on today's Order Paper together, as they raise interconnected issues arising from the release of the Legal Profession Sustainability Study, that was commissioned by the Law Society of Singapore. I will also address Written Question Nos 57 and 58 on today's Order Paper by hon Members Ms Diana Pang and Dr Wan Rizal; as well as questions filed by Ms Diana Pang1 for written answer, and by Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh for oral answer for subsequent Sittings. The hon Members may wish to withdraw the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if their queries are answered today. The Members' questions raise important issues that are deeply relevant to the legal profession. A strong legal profession underpins the rule of law, access to justice and confidence in Singapore as a trusted place to do business. The Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) vision is for Singapore to have a first-class legal system powered by a top-class legal profession that is internationally respected and highly capable. At the same time, we must also ensure that our lawyers can build careers that are sustainable, meaningful and fulfilling. These goals are not in tension but are complementary. We will not have a strong legal industry without strong legal professionals and firms. Lawyers are the centre of the legal industry and it is in our interest to ensure that our lawyers remain supported and inspired, so that the best legal talent will continue to build meaningful and sustainable legal careers in Singapore. The Legal Profession Sustainability Study has raised important issues and generated significant discussion within the profession. We thank the Law Society for commissioning this Study as well as the lawyers who have come forward with their candid views.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawkers and heartland merchants and to boost the vibrancy of our heartland neighbourhoods and businesses. Expanding the CDC Vouchers to e-commerce or online transactions would deviate from this dual-pronged intention and dilute its benefits. We recognise that some residents, including seniors and those with mobility challenges, may need extra help visiting physical outlets. Residents who require assistance may ask family members or caregivers to help them use their vouchers.”
“The Government recognises the concerns that some freelancers may face where dispute resolution processes become too costly or impractical relative to the value of the claim. At the same time, Singapore's legal framework is founded on principles of freedom of contract and party autonomy, including parties' ability to agree on how disputes should be resolved. Where parties have agreed to arbitration, there is generally an expectation that they will be honoured. Hence, the Government will not lightly intervene in privately negotiated arbitration agreements. Parties may choose arbitration for a range of legitimate reasons, including confidentiality and the ability to appoint a subject matter expert as arbitrator. There is also procedural flexibility – the market may develop low-cost, expedited and simplified arbitration processes for lower value claims. We should not close these off. Arbitration remains an important tool which supports commercial certainty and effective dispute resolution. The Ministry is committed to ensuring that there is meaningful and practical access to justice. In some cases, particularly for lower-value claims, the cost and complexity of certain forms of arbitration may make it difficult for freelancers to pursue legitimate claims. The Ministry is working closely with the Judiciary to ensure that court and tribunal processes, including the Small Claims Tribunals, remain accessible, affordable and effective. We are also studying if there can be an appropriate framework which could allow certain claims to be resolved at the Small Claims Tribunal, notwithstanding an arbitration clause, while balancing the various interests and considerations set out above.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). The role of Grassroots Advisers (GRAs) has been clearly articulated since the early days of our grassroots system and reiterated on several occasions, including in this House. GRAs are appointed by PA to fulfil various roles. This includes forging stronger people-to-people as well as people-to-Government relations, which have been critical to our national unity and identity. GRAs also help to build up social cohesion within our communities, achieved through a variety of means. One of the GRA's roles is to actively support the policies of the Government. This would include, where appropriate, explaining Government policy to the people of Singapore, in order for such policies to be understood, supported and implemented. GRAs also assist in the implementation of such policies where necessary, as well as in gathering feedback on such policies to allow the Government to make the relevant adjustments as may be appropriate. In discharging this role, it is critical for GRAs to work with the community to gain support for and implement Government policy. This is not something which opposition Members of Parliament are expected to do. It is in this context that relevant information as may be appropriate in the circumstance, is shared with GRAs. The type of information shared depends on the specific nature of the function or programme that the GRA is carrying out. As has been explained previously, such sharing of information is carried out in accordance with relevant legislation and Public Service regulations governing data sharing.”
“The analysis of the legal profession and the demand for legal talent also has to be considered in this context. We will thoroughly review all relevant data in considering questions as to attrition from the profession and whether any, and if so what, steps need to be taken to address these issues. We value each lawyer who enters the profession and endeavour for them to remain in practice or be in the legal industry with purpose and value which they can find fulfilling. Lawyers leave the profession for a variety of reasons, not all of which can be addressed systemically. We will consider the sustainability of legal practice, particularly through the lens of the young legal practitioner. The Honourable Chief Justice and the Minister for Law have therefore set up the Future of the Legal Profession Committee in December 2025 to address these issues, and others, in a comprehensive and holistic manner, and we will share our recommendations when they are ready. In the meantime, some steps are being taken to address the sustainability of legal practice. For instance, the SAL has launched the Mindful Business Movement to promote mental well-being and sustainable practices within the legal profession. Similarly, the Law Society of Singapore has introduced mentorship and other support schemes to connect young lawyers with experienced mentors, fostering career development, mental well-being and professional growth. Ensuring that legal practice remains sustainable is important, and it requires the collective effort of all stakeholders from across the profession, including the judiciary, Attorney-General's Chambers, law firms, practitioners and academia.”
“This statistic to which the Member refers was derived from media reports following a survey conducted by the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) before this year's mass admission ceremony. The survey asked the respondents, all of whom were about to be newly qualified lawyers, whether they were likely to remain in the current organisation or move to a new law firm; judicial service/legal service/public defender's office; in-house role/academia; alternate legal service provider, or move out of the profession entirely in the next three years. Respondents could select more than one option. Eighty-five of the 289 respondents, or 29%, in employment selected the option that they would move out of the profession entirely. However, of these 85, only eight, or under 3%, of them selected that option as their sole option whilst the rest selected another option as well to stay within the profession. The survey findings have to be considered in the context of this information as well. It is also important to consider survey findings within the broader context of other data. For instance, based on our data: (a) the attrition of lawyers from legal practice has remained stable in the last decade. Over the period 2015 to 2024, about six in 10 of the lawyers remained in practice in law firms after five years, and four in 10 after 10 years; (b) in addition, the number of Singapore lawyers in practice in the same period has grown by 26%; and (c) in the same decade, the number of Singapore-qualified in-house counsel has also more than doubled, to support the multinational corporations in Singapore, which has also grown to over 7,000 today. I have previously shared these data in several of my speeches this year.”
“This transformation cannot be driven by policy alone. It requires a concerted effort by all stakeholders – the Ministry, the Judiciary, law firms, senior and junior lawyers, educators and clients. The Future of the Legal Profession Committee, co-chaired by the Chief Justice and the Minister for Law, set up in December 2025, will bring together these stakeholders to look into these issues more deeply. Encouragingly, there is growing positivity within the profession. Events, such as "The Next Charter", that the Ministry organised in March demonstrate a shared recognition that AI, when used responsibly, can strengthen rather than erode the core human skills that underpin legal practice. This positive outlook extends to the next generation of lawyers. NUS Law final-year student, Kamal Ashraf Bin Kamil Jumat, who spoke at the panel discussion at "The Next Charter", highlighted that while AI will reshape legal workflows, foundational skills, judgement, ethics and mentorship remain indispensable. Our law schools share this view and are adapting their curricula to prepare students for an AI-enabled profession while preserving the core values of the law. With shared commitment, sustained mentorship and thoughtful use of technology, the Ministry, the Judiciary, the profession, educators and clients can together preserve what defines good lawyering while embracing the tools that will shape its future. I am confident the legal profession will not only adapt, but thrive.”
“With the advent of AI, it is all the more important for junior lawyers to receive strong, practice-ready foundation. This is so that they are equipped to harness AI and to develop core skills that AI cannot replace – advocacy, strategic judgement and the ability to add value to clients. The professional training framework must also evolve. The Ministry is considering allocating a portion of Continuing Professional Development points specifically to AI‑related courses, so that lawyers remain current as technology evolves rapidly. We will look into ways to strengthen lawyers' skills that AI cannot replace. These include increasing structured mentorship, courtroom exposure and advocacy experience, as these are the tools of our trade, so we must support younger lawyers to learn by observing, practising and engaging directly through human interaction. Ms Hany Soh separately asked about guidelines and regulations on AI usage in legal practice. In March 2026, the Ministry launched the Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector, which sets out key principles for the safe and responsible use of GenAI and provides practical guidance for implementation. A key tenet is that legal professionals remain ultimately accountable for all work products as part of their duties to clients. The Singapore Courts have also issued a Guide on the Use of GenAI Tools by Court Users, with sanctions for non-compliance in all Court matters. We have taken the approach of a facilitative Guide rather than prescribed regulations at this stage, so as not to unintentionally stifle innovation and discourage innovators, as AI is still advancing. AI is here to stay. The question is not whether to adopt it, but how we turn it to our collective advantage.”
“This directly addresses concerns about reducing workload raised by Mr Low. To equip our lawyers to make full use of these opportunities, we will need to also fundamentally change how legal skills are learned and developed. As Mr Low noted, traditional formative experiences, such as document review and manual research, are increasingly AI-assisted or AI-driven. The way lawyers build their foundation and hone their craft must therefore change. Legal education and professional training are shifting towards equipping lawyers with critical thinking skills, the ability to direct, interrogate and take responsibility for AI-generated output and the capability to exercise judgment and empathy. Our law schools are increasingly integrating AI into their teaching, and we will have to consider if the teaching curriculum and pedagogy should be refreshed. As an example, National University of Singapore's Law is currently using AI chatbots to simulate witnesses for cross-examination practice, and Singapore Management University Law has dedicated courses on AI in legal practice. The Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law also conduct generative AI (GenAI) workshops and prompt engineering clinics to equip lawyers with AI skills. Mr Low has noted that the practice training period has been lengthened from six months to one year. This was one of the recommendations made by the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers in 2018, pre-dating the widespread use of AI in legal practice. The objective was to strengthen the training regime so that junior lawyers are equipped with both sound technical skills and the right professional values regardless of prevailing economic conditions or industry disruptions.”
“In a 2025 legaltech survey commissioned by Info-communications Media Development Authority, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Law Society of Singapore, 90% of law firms that adopted legaltech in the preceding 12 months saw gains in manpower efficiency and 82% saw gains in revenue. These are nascent findings, but they provide an encouraging early indicator that we should continue to harness and use technology and AI. MinLaw saw the benefits of advancing the use of technology in legal practice even before the current wave of AI tools came into the market. We provided funding from as early as 2017 to support Singapore law firms to adopt legaltech. Today, the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) for the Legal Sector by the Ministry continues to apply, defraying 50% of firms' first-year cost of adopting pre-approved legaltech and AI solutions, capped at S$45,000 per year. Law firms can also tap on Enterprise Singapore's Enterprise Development Grant to upgrade and innovate, or the general PSG for non-legaltech solutions to improve their productivity and automate their processes. We are aware that cost is not the only barrier to AI adoption. For many law firms, it is also the challenge of change management. We therefore launched the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation initiative in June 2025. This pilot deploys legaltech consultants to help law firms to digitalise and adopt tech solutions. The consultants recommend suitable legaltech solutions and oversee the end-to-end change management process from implementation to optimisation. As referred to above, what is certain is AI's significant potential in reducing inefficiencies that have traditionally contributed to long hours and burnout.”
“My response will also address a related Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Andre Low for the Sitting on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to "Impact of AI Adoption on Junior Lawyer Training Pipelines and Addressing Developmental Gaps Through One-year Practice Training Framework", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section.] Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant or speculative trend. It is already significantly reshaping the legal services industry globally. Harnessed safely and responsibly, it is a powerful tool with tremendous opportunities for our legal services industry. Used in the right manner, AI enhances productivity greatly for a lawyer. Rote tasks such as legal research, document review, chronology building that used to take days can now be done in minutes. Statistics show that nearly 240 hours can be freed up per year with the use of AI. This figure can only grow as AI improves, which it continues to do. This time saved allows lawyers to reallocate time and effort to higher-value tasks – case strategy, risk assessment, persuasion and advocacy – where human professional judgement truly matters and where AI falls short. Rather than allow the advent of AI to undermine the profession, we should embrace its development and embed its usage in the profession, and this will in turn open up opportunities for younger lawyers to undertake higher value work which they will find more professionally rewarding. We encourage the use of technology and AI, but we are also mindful of its impact on related matters, such as legal education and training, which we will address below. We do not directly track the specific data that Mr Andre Low asked about. However, we track the benefits gained by law firms who use legaltech tools.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to "Workload Reduction at Law Firms from AI Use and Guidelines for Such Use", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts. The top five offences for which such sentences were imposed were: (a) theft; (b) hurt offences; (c) Road Traffic Act 1961 offences such as driving without licence; (d) driving without insurance offences under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960; and (e) criminal trespass. In 2025, community sentences under part 17 of the CPC were imposed in 112 criminal cases handled by the State Courts. The top five offences for which such sentences were imposed were: (a) theft; (b) Road Traffic Act offences, such as driving without licence; (c) hurt offences; (d) driving without insurance offences under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act; and (e) voyeurism and sexual exposure offences under sections 377BB to 377BF of the Penal Code 1871.”
“So, even if it appears that an incident happened within the framework of what might be Malaysia's jurisdiction, but if the individual or the offence is not a subject of proceedings, then the conditions are not satisfied. So, I hope this makes it quite clear. 2.48 pm”
“Thank you, let me explain that. In fact, I had turned it up to the same page; I thought the Member might ask that question. Clause 39, if the Member has it with her, deals with a scenario where we take jurisdiction. So, if you look at clause 39(1), "Any conduct engaged in by a person [whether] on board a...train... [in a] defined zone [and so on],... if engaged in within Singapore, would constitute an offence... [and it will be] treated... as if the person engaged in that conduct in Singapore." So, clause 39(1) is a provision that takes jurisdiction. Clause 39(2), which the Member referred to, is a scenario where if a person is found – if you look at b(i) and b(ii) – where the authorities in that country, meaning Malaysia, "not subject to any obligation to cede jurisdiction to...Singapore authorities." To the Member Ms Lim, I remember that I had said that in the RTS Link Bilateral Agreements, we have come to an arrangement bilaterally on which countries would assume primary jurisdiction. The Member might recall that I talked about the trains, which direction, where the nose was and so on. And so that is the framework that determines the jurisdiction. So, it is in that context that we put in a provision that talks about a reference to when they might cede jurisdiction. Because otherwise, they would have jurisdiction over all matters. But that framework provides for when they will cede that to Singapore; and correspondingly on our part, when we might cede that to Malaysia. So, if that scenario happens and not just that, but then plus the other condition, which is that criminal proceedings are then brought in a country – that means no person would, on account of these provisions, not be prosecuted.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary. But as I mentioned in my reply speech, there is a provision and an option to activate personnel to be on the trains, if necessary, as a precaution. But as a default, we do not propose to start with having dedicated security personnel on the trains.”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law. Sir, I believe I have covered Members' queries and questions, so, let me conclude. I thank the Members for underscoring the point that this Bill is a key supporting pillar of the RTS Link and will bring convenience of travel to several segments of society. This Bill gives effect to a very comprehensive set of arrangements that facilitate co-located CIQ clearance and undergirds jointly developed protocols for coordinated management of cross-border incidents. This will, in turn, help to ensure that the RTS Link experience for travellers is not only convenient and seamless, but also safe and secure. On that note, I thank the Members' support of this Bill, and Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. 2.45 pm”
“I had taken Members through earlier, what these limits would look like in my opening speech as well as earlier in my reply speech. When discharging their duties, be it managing cross-border incidents or even carrying out routine duties at the CIQ zone, all officers remain under the order of their commanding officers. This is provided for under clauses 13, 22, 30 and 34 of the Bill. Turning now to data protection, Ms Lee asked how the provisions regarding data protection would be operationalised. As I mentioned, the Bill will keep the data collected or generated by Singapore officers in Malaysia under the governance of Singapore law, and provide for the immunity of our equipment and devices in Malaysia from seizure and also from other forms of interference. Let me assure this House and all Members that the stringent requirements imposed on the handling, processing and storing of data in Singapore are similarly applicable to any data or information Singapore officers in Malaysia collect or generate in the course of their work. Mr Dennis Tan had asked whether the data that we collect, when transmitted back to Singapore, would be protected or secured and he asked whether it would be air-gapped. The answer is yes, it would be. So, we have a secure line that transmits that data. Ms Lee also asked how the Government would hold relevant parties accountable in the event of a data breach. Since the data is collected, transmitted, kept and governed under Singapore law, any data breach would, therefore, be dealt with in accordance with Singapore law – something we are familiar with.”
“Members will see that, in fact, the Malaysian Bill specifically mentions Singapore-Johor Link and it is designed specifically for this Link only. And that is why they have enacted an RTS-specific legislation which codifies the specific arrangements that we have agreed to bilaterally in our agreements in their Bill. So, they have taken a different approach from us. Mr Vikram, Ms Lee and Mr Yip also asked how both sides would coordinate responses to major cross-border incidents and whether certain operational aspects would be addressed separately under other arrangements. Sir, I had spoken earlier on the principles of cross-border incident management that both sides have agreed to abide by. These are important principles and they help determine the country that would have overall command and control of the management of a cross-border incident and ensure that both countries' responses are coordinated and do not pose unnecessary risk to friendly forces. Both sides have also addressed other operational aspects of cross-border incident management via a comprehensive set of joint SOPs. These were developed with the rail operator's involvement, so that all the relevant stakeholders around such an incident that might occur, can work in tandem to respond effectively to such incidents. Operational agencies from both countries, along with the rail operator, will conduct joint exercises later this year, ahead of the RTS Link service commencement, both to test as well as to validate the application of these SOPs. Mr Yip had an additional question on ensuring officers' accountability during cross-border incident management. Sir, every officer has to adhere to the established procedures and limits in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them.”
“That is the method and I want to emphasise that both countries have discussed and agreed on in the RTS Link Supplementary Agreements; and both sides have an obligation, under those agreements, to abide by it. There are situations where one country may well want to assert jurisdiction, but there is also a process for countries to discuss, if both assess that there is public interest in prosecuting the case. As I mentioned earlier, we come across these occasions not infrequently. So, as long as both sides adhere to this agreement, it is unlikely that anyone will be exposed to double prosecution for the same conduct. Ms Lim had asked, in particular, why the detail of these arrangements as to jurisdiction, have not been spelt out in this Bill. I would just like to remind this House that our Bill applies to cross-border railways generally. It is not just limited to giving effect to the bilateral arrangements for this particular RTS Link with Johor, with Bukit Chagar. It is purpose-built to accommodate similar treaties for other cross-border railways, if and when they arise. We cannot foresee the precise details of those cross-border railways, whether there might be a co-location of CIQ or how the parties might take jurisdiction of the trains in the manner which I have articulated earlier; and therefore, our approach has been to espouse the broad principles on criminal jurisdiction in the Bill itself. And as I have mentioned earlier, some of the specifics that relate to the RTS Link in this case appear in the two Schedules that I have taken Members through earlier. Malaysia, which Ms Lim had taken the trouble of looking up the legislation, has taken a different approach.”
“And in that scenario, that would be the country that has the primary jurisdiction. Should the offence be committed on a reverse journey, I think I do not need to repeat that, Members understand that it will be the converse on what I have just said earlier. Then Malaysia would have primary right. However, where there is public interest for us to conduct investigations into the matter, Singapore may request for Malaysia to waive its right. We have not hard-coded what public interest might look like, because each scenario could well be different and it depends on the context, the different circumstances on which the case arises and the way in which we might view our interest in a particular offence or the individual concerned. So, we have not hard-coded that into the framework here, but there is an arrangement within the Bilateral Agreements. I would say also that it is not only in the context of such an arrangement where we have co-located the CIQs, that issues of public interests might arise. In fact, it arises all the time when there are cross-border incidents. And Members know that we have one of the busiest cross-border land checkpoints at the Causeway and we have been managing this with the Malaysians consistently. So, there will be no change to that. The law enforcement agencies of the country with the primary right to exercise jurisdiction will work closely with the rail operator to gather and preserve any available evidence. For what we term as, "live cross-border incidents", such as a train stalling on the tracks, both countries have agreed that the country assigned as incident manager would also have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction and carry out investigations.”
“Ultimately, I want to assure the House that the aim is to provide a travel experience that is smooth and seamless, as many have articulated, but at the same time, strictly without compromising on safety and security, especially of our border controls. Mr Vikram and Dr Neo Kok Beng asked whether there will be security personnel on board the RTS Link trains. There are no plans to deploy our enforcement officers on board the trains, but there will be comprehensive CCTV coverage of the interior of the train cabins that will be monitored back-end in real-time. The rail operator also has the option of deploying roving staff on board trains, as and when they decide necessary and they will be able to contact the operations control centre and provide any necessary assistance during the five-minute journey. A few Members raised questions about concurrent criminal jurisdiction and cross-border incident management. In particular, Ms Lee, Mr Yip and Ms Sylvia Lim, asked about the method by which Singapore and Malaysia would determine the country with primary right to exercise jurisdiction over criminal offences on board a train in transit. The country where the train completes its journey will be accorded the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. I mentioned this earlier in my opening speech, but I thought I will just repeat some of these points. So, therefore, if an offence is committed on a train that is journeying from Bukit Chagar Station to Woodlands North Station, then Singapore would have primary right; and the converse is true. Earlier, a Member said, what happens if you break down halfway and you are towed back to your original station, then I suppose the destination will be where you are towed back to.”
“So, for example, during a major outage causing downtime on border clearance systems, it is in both countries' interests to ensure that there is additional manpower to maintain business continuity to continue the flow and clearance, security checks and so on, and also to minimise congestion. Such deployments should not exceed three days in the ordinary course, as provided for under paragraph 8 of the Second Schedule, unless the Malaysian Government puts in a request for a longer duration and the Minister approves this request. Ms Lee asked how the co-located CIQ model of the RTS Link compares with co-located border control in other countries. One distinct feature of the RTS Link is where immigration clearance takes place. For the RTS Link, the traveller goes through departure and arrival clearances before embarkation. This is similar to the experience at the Channel Tunnel, which connects the UK and France, which Ms Lim also alluded to. A different approach, however, is taken for the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. In that case, a traveller departing Shenzhen goes through departure and arrival clearances only upon disembarkation in Hong Kong. To return to Shenzhen – the reverse journey – he goes through departure and arrival clearances in Hong Kong before boarding the train. I wish to assure this House that the model adopted for our RTS Link is the subject of quite extensive deliberations. We looked at different models. We discussed internally, as well as bilaterally with Malaysia. Obviously, the system has got to find consensus on both sides to be able to be equally applicable on both sides for this to work.”
“But regardless of how Malaysian law deals with such attempts, our focus is to harden our borders against such items and prevent them from coming into Singapore. And so, we will do so when we have the ability to do checks, both at Bukit Chagar Station as well as at Woodlands North Station. As Singapore officers are not granted powers of arrest when they are performing their duties in Malaysia, Ms Lee is correct to say that our officers would need to seek assistance by leveraging existing mechanisms and channels between both countries' law enforcement agencies. This is a reciprocal arrangement. We cannot arrest in Malaysia and Malaysian officers cannot arrest in Singapore. Should drugs be found or, in fact, any other illicit items be found during checks done in Singapore, Singapore law would then apply. And Singapore's zero-tolerance approach to drug trafficking will not change. Mr Yip asked about deployment of officers to the other country during what paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule refers to as "serious unplanned incidents". As I have mentioned earlier, this is a contingency, with the intention to provide for an expeditious but a controlled way of deploying additional manpower in appropriate cases. I understand the point that Members have made about the urgency of the situation: Mr Tan mentioned fires, Mr Yip mentioned incidents and every second counts. We agree with that. We endeavor to strike a balance between that urgency and the propriety of both officers who respond to such incidents from both sides.”
“First, there will be multiple layers of checks. Under the Bill, Singapore officers have the powers to conduct selective checks within the designated areas at Bukit Chagar Station. So, we can do so in Malaysia. This is on top of the checks that Malaysian officers would have done and conducted on all travellers before they are granted departure clearance at the Bukit Chagar Station. Second, when these same travellers arrive at Woodlands North Station, they may then also be subject to further selective security checks. Third, as I have mentioned in my opening speech, Singapore and Malaysia have jointly developed a comprehensive set of standard operational procedures (SOPs) for the purposes of conducting border clearance and security checks in a co-located CIQ arrangement. These SOPs will ensure smooth coordination between each layer of checks and mitigate the risk of threats slipping through. And I believe earlier, a Member asked whether we are in contact, whether there will be joint exercises, the answer is, yes, there are. There are planning exercises as well also ground operational readiness exercises that we will conduct – not just before the start of the operationalisation of the RTS Link, but also subsequently as we continue to run both CIQs and the RTS Link. Ms Cassandra Lee and Mr Yip asked how Singapore officers in Malaysia would handle individuals found to be carrying items controlled or prohibited under Singapore law, such as drugs or vapes. If our officers at Bukit Chagar Station detect attempts to bring in vapes or drugs, Malaysian laws would apply. The traveller in question would be handed over to the Malaysian authorities and the case would then be handled in accordance with Malaysian law and their position on offences on drugs and non-compliant vapes.”
“First, no Singapore officer will be deployed to Malaysia for cross-border railway duties unless the Minister is satisfied that Malaysian law allows the Singapore officer to do their official duties in Malaysia properly, under the command of their own commanding officers, and that they are conferred with the necessary powers, duties and privileges equivalent to their counterparts in Malaysia. That is made clear in clause 22 of the Bill. As mentioned earlier, Malaysia's legislation, which is accessible online, affords protections and immunities to our officers based in Malaysia, similar to what this Bill accords to Malaysian officers based in Singapore. To Mr Dennis Tan's point about there being substantive reciprocity in powers and immunities, I will confirm to him that the answer is yes. Second, clause 24 makes clear that every Singapore officer deployed to Malaysia in relation to cross-border railways has the same rights, powers and immunities as they do when performing the same duties in Singapore. Third, the protections and immunities conferred on Malaysian officers in Singapore are conditional on our officers being accorded similar treatment when operating in Malaysia. Clause 44 of the Bill provides for the Minister to disapply any of these protections and immunities if there is a change in the level of protection and immunities afforded to our officers in Malaysia. Mr Vikram asked about operational measures to prevent smuggling of prohibited or controlled items across the border. The co-location of CIQ facilities provide convenience for travellers, as many of my colleagues in this House have articulated. But we have worked hard to ensure that this does not come at the expense of border security. So, let me just reiterate these steps.”
“There might have been some conflation and so, I thought I will take some time to explain this. The main body of the Bill is focused on what I called earlier, the "ordinary" powers. These are the baseline powers that are necessary for the day-to-day work of conducting border clearance and security checks. Basically, CIQ work. These include the powers to require travellers to present their passport, refuse entry of persons or goods and perform screening and other searches, such as body searches. These are powers that are already provided to our own officers today for routine border clearance and security checks. The Second Schedule, however, contains "special" powers, or what I called "special" powers in my speech earlier. These are the powers that equip officers with the legal basis to manage non-routine situations and ensure travellers' safety and security. They are also no different from the powers that ICA officers already have today for managing incidents at the existing checkpoints. These powers have been codified in the bilateral RTS Link Supplementary Agreement entered into with Malaysia. The circumstances in which these powers will be used are limited. For example, officers are allowed to use reasonable force for purposes of detaining an individual who behaves in a disorderly or threatening manner. And to Mr Yip's point, conducting of strip or body searches without consent is strictly limited to individuals who present a danger to human life or safety. Mr Yip asked whether Singapore officers deployed to Malaysia will be able to do their jobs effectively under adequate legal protection. The Bill contains several provisions and safeguards to this effect. Let me just reiterate them.”
“For example, on the power to take possession of dangerous or controlled items uncovered during checks and detain individuals in connection with the above, clause 15 provides that Malaysian preclearance officers transfer custody of these items or individuals to a Singapore officer as soon as is practicable. Do not forget, they are located in the same space, in the same checkpoint, in both Bukit Chagar as well as in Woodlands North Station. This means that if a Malaysian officer detects such items, he is required to contact ICA officers without undue delay, for ICA officers to then deal with in accordance with our domestic standard operating procedures and in accordance with Singapore law. Additionally, clause 18 makes clear that Malaysian officers are not allowed to make an arrest on Singapore's territory. Second, and this also speaks to some of the questions that Mr Yip had raised, the immunities which the Bill confers on the actions of Malaysian officers are not unconditional. They are contingent on those actions being undertaken as part of their official duties in the designated areas. Actions taken outside of that or which exceed the scope of these duties would then not be protected by the immunities. Finally, the Singapore Minister for Home Affairs has the power to withdraw recognition for any Malaysian preclearance officer at any time without giving any reason. We do this for obvious reasons. We want to have the flexibility and ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, and depending on what the facts might present at that location, whether we need to exercise this power. I should make clear, for completeness, that we should distinguish the powers set out under the main provisions of the Bill and those under the Second Schedule.”
“So, the experience is not altogether dissimilar, it is just that we put these powers and the framework into the checkpoint at Woodlands North Station and correspondingly, on the other side, Bukit Chagar. As I mentioned earlier, the list of Malaysian laws that would apply in the designated areas is set out in paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule. Without these laws in place in the framework that we have proposed in this Bill, in the designated areas in Woodlands North Station, Malaysian officers, who operate here, would have no legal backing to carry out their duties here, and then, in that respect, the co-located CIQ model would not work. Third, there is no change to Singapore's territorial boundaries. Clause 8 of this Bill makes this point clear. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to emphasise this point. Singapore law remains in effect over the entirety of Woodlands North Station, even within the designated areas. Singapore officers are available to assist travellers if needed. If travellers encounter issues or need help in the designated areas, they should act similar to how they would anywhere else in Singapore and where necessary, seek help from Singapore authorities. Mr Vikram, Ms Lee and Mr Yip also asked about the recourse available if Malaysia's officers operating in Singapore exceed the scope of what they are allowed to do. Let me just reiterate a few points, some of which I have covered earlier. The Bill sets clear limits to the powers that the Malaysian officers have when they exercise their duties in Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the various Members for their speeches, their thoughtful comments and their strong support of the Bill. As some Members have noted, I have already covered some of the points in my opening speech, so I do not propose to repeat them, but nonetheless, there are quite a number of process questions which I thought I will just take in turn. Mr Vikram Nair, Ms Cassandra Lee and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the implications arising from the application of Malaysian laws at Woodlands North Station. This is an important point, so, let me just take some time to clarify this. First, the application of Malaysian border control laws is restricted to only the designated areas within Woodlands North Station. These designated areas will be clearly demarcated with signages, as required by clause 7 of the Bill. LTA will work closely with its Malaysian counterparts to ensure that there is clarity and there are sufficient signages, and that they are prominently displayed and presented in our official languages. Second, I had mentioned that the application of Malaysia's border control laws in the designated areas in Woodlands North Station is for the sole purpose of empowering the Malaysian officers to conduct the necessary border clearances and security checks on travellers departing for Malaysia. Members might recall that it is because they have their border control located within Singapore, so we need to give them legal effect for them to do the work that they do to clear, so that we also have a corresponding arrangement on the Bukit Chagar side. The effect of applying these laws in the designated areas would be similar to what travellers would encounter at the usual checkpoints in Malaysia when travelling to Malaysia.”
“Orders relating to the custody, care and control of a child often contain sensitive and deeply private information, including information that may affect or prejudice the child if disclosed inappropriately or unnecessarily. Custody information therefore needs to be carefully handled and we should be careful about automatic dissemination across multiple platforms with different access rights. Currently, parents have the discretion to inform the relevant Government agencies of the requisite custody, care and control orders. At the same time, relevant agencies are open to feedback on the situations where the advantages outweigh the risks of sharing such orders across different settings.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). Grassroots Advisers (GRAs) are not officers in the Public Service, and do not receive any remuneration or other allowance or benefit in their role as GRAs. The work and objectives of the PA (which have been discussed in Parliament on previous occasions) will, from time to time, require information and data in order for such work to be carried out effectively. To this extent, GRAs and grassroots organisations receive relevant information which will enable them to discharge their functions. Such information is shared in accordance with relevant legislation and any prevailing public service regulations.”
“The ASEAN Extradition Treaty was adopted on 14 November 2025. No ASEAN Member State has ratified the Treaty to date, and there is no agreed timeframe among ASEAN Member States on when to bring the Treaty into force. To be able to ratify the ASEAN Treaty on Extradition, Singapore must update the Extradition Act notifications to extend its application to the ASEAN Treaty on Extradition, upon the entry into force of the Treaty.”
“Investigations for the offence of wrongful trading1 under section 239(6) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 fall under the purview of the Official Receiver and not the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. Such investigations are carried out when reports of suspected wrongful trading are made to the Official Receiver, either by insolvency professionals or creditors. In the past three years, there have been no reports of suspected wrongful trading made to the Official Receiver. A person found guilty of wrongful trading may be punished with a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to three years, or both. Civil claims for wrongful trading can be pursued to seek compensation, independent of such investigations. Creditors, contributories or the judicial manager or liquidator of a company2 may apply to the Court to declare that a person who knows a company is trading wrongfully or who as an officer of the company ought to have known that the company was trading wrongfully, be personally responsible for some or all of the company's debts or other liabilities. If the Court makes such a declaration, the Court may also make the appropriate consequential directions, including that monies recovered from the person be paid to the company’s creditors. The Ministry of Law does not have statistics on the number of civil actions for wrongful trading in the past three years.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). The PA's mission is to promote social cohesion and racial harmony. One of the ways we achieve this is by bringing national celebrations like Chingay@Heartlands and National Day Heartland Celebrations closer to residents in their neighbourhoods, thereby fostering community bonds. When organising these celebrations, PA works with various stakeholders and local Grassroots Organisations (GROs) to identify suitable locations. Key considerations for heartland celebrations sites include site capacity to maximise outreach and cost-effectiveness, accessibility and whether venues can meet operational requirements. For example, the National Day Heartland Celebrations in 2025 required sites with appropriate terrain and suitable roads that could be closed for the deployment of mobile columns. Given these considerations, PA does not employ a rigid multi-year rotational framework to determine the locations of heartland celebration sites. Instead, site selection takes into account the local needs and operational context, year on year. Generally, there is one heartland celebration per district, so that all our residents can conveniently access a celebration near them.”
“There are already grant programmes in place to support law firms to adopt technology, including artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Since 2022, the Ministry of Law has provided funding support via the Productivity Solutions Grant for the Legal Sector (PSG-Legal) to help law firms to digitalise. PSG-Legal today defrays 50% of firms' first-year cost of adopting pre-approved legaltech solutions, capped at $45,000 per year. Supported solution categories include AI tools, such as legal chatbots and document review software. Law firms can also tap on Enterprise Singapore's Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) to upgrade and innovate, or the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) for non-legaltech solutions to improve their productivity and automate their processes. Enabling AI adoption is not only about addressing cost but also providing support for change management, especially for smaller law firms. We recognise that many lawyers are kept busy by their daily work and may not have the capacity to dedicate additional hours to researching and implementing solutions. We therefore launched the pilot of the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation (LIFT) initiative in June 2025. Under LIFT, the Ministry of Law deploys legaltech consultants to law firms to oversee the end-to-end change process. The legaltech consultants will help law firms diagnose their technology needs, recommend suitable legaltech solutions and implement the chosen solution.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). To celebrate Singapore's 60th anniversary, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong introduced the SG60 vouchers to recognise all Singaporeans' contributions to nation-building and share the benefits of our nation's progress. The vouchers also help ease cost-of-living concerns whilst supporting local businesses. All Singapore Citizens aged 21 and above in 2025 received $600 in SG60 vouchers. Seniors aged 60 and above received an additional $200, bringing their total to $800. Between 2021 and 2025, $3.995 billion in Community Development Council (CDC) and SG60 vouchers were spent, with an average claim rate of 97.7% across the seven CDC vouchers tranches. Of this amount, $2.127 billion supported heartland shops and hawkers, whilst $1.868 billion was spent at supermarkets. The SG60 vouchers continue to see good claim and spend rates as they follow the same user-friendly process as CDC vouchers, ensuring familiarity for residents. Similarly, they can also use their SG60 vouchers in the 24,000 participating CDC vouchers heartland merchants and hawkers, as well as over 400 supermarket outlets. The PA staff and grassroots leaders have been reaching out to seniors living alone. Beyond grassroots support, our network of partners, such as merchants' and hawkers' association, are also encouraging participating businesses to assist and remind customers to claim and spend their SG60 vouchers.”
“We are thinking about what more can be done and we are studying the expansion, both in terms of the pilot, as well as thinking about what other functions of the CRU can be expanded. When we are ready with that, we will come back and explain that in due course.”
“Sir, we have taken the view that mediation is effective. Members heard Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua outline some of the statistics. Broadly, although I know that they currently apply to consensual mediation, 80% of cases are resolved amicably through mediation. So, we think this is an effective mechanism and framework. More importantly, in the context of community disputes where you are talking about two neighbours who live in proximity to one another, we think that it is, in fact, the most appropriate means by which you should resolve a dispute. So, we have designed the enhanced framework in the Community Disputes Resolution Act, which we passed in Parliament some months ago as having a lower threshold for driving parties to mediation, and in this case, mandatory mediation. We think that in most cases, matters ought to be resolved in the first instance and maybe even in the second instance through mediation. Therefore, the threshold for issuing a mediation direction is low. There is no a need to investigate the case. So, the officer who issues the direction does not have to ascertain whether one is right or the other one is wrong. As long as there is a prima facie basis for believing that there is a valid complaint and that they are not trying to bring a neighbour to mediation vexatiously. In those circumstances, the threshold having been met, the direction will be issued. In terms of an expansion, let me say that we are studying the pilot that is being conducted at Tampines, learning from the experiences, understanding the processes and streamlining it, and in some cases, finetuning it.”
“Thank you, Ms Lim. I cited a lot of public source information and data. Mr Wong's qualifications, his reputation, his CV and what he has achieved in both in public service as well as in private practice, I think it is really common knowledge. The ongoing projects that you mentioned and you seem to say that they are new, the fact that we have maritime boundary discussions, I think is not new. I have not gone into the sensitive materials because I cannot and I will not, but I think it suffices to say that we take this into account. And on the Member's second question, it is not that any individual is indispensable. But at a given point in time, a multitude of factors are taken into account, as I said, including whether he is available, whether he is able to continue. Continuity is one factor, but it is not the only one. But taking all of this into account, factors such as what are the ongoing projects, his ability to contribute, the projects that are ongoing, the stature and reputation of the individual at hand, all of these are factors that we take into account in selecting the individual for the office. 11.45 am As for the Member's first question, I am not going to go into whether there is a long list or a shortlist, but it suffices to say that we will consider this carefully, think about what the incumbent has done, whether there is a need to change at that point in time and if so, what are the options, and take all of these factors into consideration before deciding on making a recommendation to the President.”