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 20 of 45.
“You can make a good case for not changing now and waiting. However, you can also consider the following. The Legal Service has, since 2014, also grown significantly. It had, as of July 2021, 815 officers. Although this is still a relatively small number in context, it will allow us to have specialist services whilst retaining the benefits of the integrated model through a system of secondments. Officers today have many opportunities to gain meaningful exposure and develop their careers. Since 2014, both the Judicial Branch and the Legal Branch have made various changes to deepen specialist skillsets. There has also been a significant emphasis on the training of our judges to develop specific competencies required for the judicial role. In 2015, Members might recall the Singapore Judicial College was established as the central training body for the Judiciary. The State Courts and the Family Courts also run their own training programmes to help their judicial officers develop both deeper subject-matter knowledge as well as the necessary practical skills. At AGC, the AGC Academy was set up to take charge of managing the training for AGC officers. Competency frameworks were developed so that individual training roadmaps could be drawn for each officer according to their own area of practice and specific level of expertise. The Academy also organises regular workshops and lectures by subject-matter experts in both core and developing areas of the law, for AGC officers. Cross-departmental clusters and specialist tracks have been established to help build expertise in particular areas of law. Sir, the proposed restructuring will build on these efforts, better support specialisation of roles and competencies required of LSOs.”
“Sir, these are just a few examples of the many contributions of the Legal Service in ensuring the fair and efficient administration of justice in Singapore during the pandemic. So, what I have just outlined has been the model that we have adopted since Singapore achieved self-government. It has served us well to build up a Legal Service into the excellent institution that it is today and I think Members will agree that Singapore has benefited immensely. Over the years, the Government has considered the question of whether an integrated or a specialist service would best serve Singapore's needs. We recognise the pros and cons both ways. The challenge has been and continues to be finding the right balance for our own circumstances, our own context and our needs. As mentioned, the small talent pool has been a constraint and that is something that we keep in mind as we consider the options. In July this year, Mr Murali Pillai, with the support of other Members, spoke on this matter in Parliament, calling on the Government to study the feasibility of setting up a separate JSC for judicial officers. Several members spoke and made good points about the increasing need for specialisation, including for the Judiciary, given the increasing factual and legal complexities of the cases presented to Court. Minister Shanmugam agreed with their observations that the benefits of specialisation are likely to continue to grow as the Legal Service continues growing and maturing as an institution. After studying the matter further and discussing the matter in detail with the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, the Government decided that we can take this step. As Minister Shanmugam has said recently, the amendment is a finely balanced one.”
“These measures, which required major pieces of legislation to be drafted in record time, included, and I think Members will recall over the last 18 months: (a) temporary relief from contractual obligations, (b) a rental relief framework, done more than once; (c) simplified frameworks for financially distressed companies to liquidate their businesses or restructure their debts; and (d) a framework for the negotiation of contracts affected by the pandemic. All novel pieces of legislation. The quickly drafted legislation also allowed the Government to quickly implement new measures to control the spread of the disease. When circuit breaker measures were imposed to stop the spread of the virus, LSOs in the Courts, AGC and MinLaw, with other officers in the various agencies, worked together to formulate legislation to ensure the continued and undisrupted access to justice in spite of the pandemic. The Courts operationalised a framework for remote hearings, developed a wide range of pandemic-related protocols. This ensured continued, undisrupted access to justice, even in the middle of the pandemic. To enforce the Infectious Diseases Act and COVID-19-related legislation, prosecutors worked closely with law enforcement agencies to assess the evidence and take quick action in all cases. On the international front, LSOs in the International Affairs Division ensured that our COVID-19 measures remained consistent with our international obligations. As the situation improved in Singapore, they also assisted the Government in negotiating essential travel and air bubble arrangements to sustain economic exchanges and maintain our relevance as a regional and global hub.”
“The World Economic Forum placed Singapore first in its 2019 Global Competitiveness Index, in terms of the efficiency of its legal framework in settling disputes. Sir, this is not an exercise in theory or just in ranking numbers, but an exercise in building an institution that can actually deliver justice. The COVID-19 pandemic that we have just been experiencing and we are still in, has shown the depth and excellence of our Legal Service. LSOs in both the Judicial and Legal branches have worked tremendously hard to deal with the challenges brought about by COVID-19. LSOs in the Legal Branch provided crucial legal support to the Government response to the pandemic. In January 2020, AGC stood up a Cross-Divisional Task Force, staffed by LSOs from the AGC and the legal divisions in various Ministries to provide urgent cross-cutting advice to the Government on all areas of the national pandemic response. For example, establishing Government quarantine facilities, contract tracing, border security, ensuring continued trade flows for essential goods and services and supplies, financing the various COVID-19 response budgets, and also vaccine procurement. In the first half of 2020 alone, AGC received over 1,300 COVID-19 related requests for advice. It responded to 69% of these requests within 24 hours and 78% of these within 48 hours. So, it is not just the quality, but also the speed of the responses from our officers. LSOs, including drafters from AGC, worked closely with policy officers in many Ministries as well as with private sector representatives to roll out a series of urgent measures to mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic on individuals and businesses.”
“The work of many Legal Service Officers has contributed significantly to the recognition which our legal system has obtained as being among the best legal systems in the world.” Today, over 800 LSOs serve in various crucial roles. LSOs in the Judicial Branch have contributed to building a world-class Judiciary that is both strong and trusted. LSOs in the Legal Branch, such as in the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and in the various Ministries, support effective and nimble functioning of the Executive and Parliament. For example, officers in AGC's Legislative Division, not only draft all the laws that are tabled and debated in this House, and I am sure Members are very familiar with all the Bills that have come, sometimes at breakneck speed, but also many pieces of subsidiary legislation that are critical for the effective functioning of the Executive. Our international lawyers, they defend Singapore’s interests on the global front and make an outsize contribution to the continued vitality of the rules-based international order. The high levels of public trust in these institutions is also worth noting. A 2020 public perception survey by MinLaw found that there is a strong positive perception of our legal system and institutions among Singapore residents: 95% of respondents agreed that we are governed by the Rule of Law; 90% had trust and confidence in our legal system and agreed that we had an efficient legal system; around 90% had a positive view of our Courts and of AGC. On the world stage, in the Heritage Foundation’s 2021 Index of Economic Freedom, Singapore achieved the highest scores among 184 countries for judicial effectiveness.”
“The 1955 Malayanisation Commission, which was set up to accelerate the pace of localising the public service, in preparation for self-government, recommended that Legal Service officers be transferred from the Judicial side to the Legal side and vice versa, so as to “give officers an all-round training, and also to overcome the present objection of potential recruits to having experience limited to one side of the Service only which leads to a monotonous and incomplete professional career.” It was also agreed that all-round experience was beneficial, and that it would be best for officers to have experience at the Bar, on the Bench, as well as in the Attorney-General’s Department. At the time of Independence, we only had 45 LSOs. It took 30 years for the Legal Service to grow to 235 LSOs in 1995. This number grew significantly, to 589 LSOs in 2014. But even then, a fully specialist service was not a viable option. There were only 159 officers in the Judicial Branch; and 419 officers in the Legal Branch. With these numbers, having specialist services would leave officers, on the judicial side especially, lacking in opportunities for growth and career development. An “incomplete professional career”, to quote the words of the Malayanisation Commission. This would hamper the ability to attract and also retain talent. Sir, the integrated model has worked well for our context. The Legal Service has played a key role in the development of our legal system and, consequently, in building Singapore’s reputation for commitment to the rule of law. As Former CJ Yong Pung How said previously: “... the Legal Service has played a very important role in the success which Singapore has achieved as a nation.”
“But in addition, up to six additional members, who need not be Supreme Court Judges or PSC members, could be nominated by the Prime Minister, the CJ and the Chairman/PSC. The rationale was to bring in members, including those from the private sector, with a wider range of experience, for example, in personnel management, or who have knowledge of the legal service or the legal profession. A second key change that was made then was to put in place a system of autonomous personnel boards (PBs), which would have charge over different classes of Legal Service Officers (LSOs). I will cover this in more detail later on in my speech. The second major change happened in 2014. There was a significant shift in favour of specialisation, in response to the increasing scope and complexity of legal work. Two separate career tracks were introduced for the LSOs in the middle ranks: the judicial and legal tracks. LSOs in the middle-ranks could elect to specialise along either track. They could be posted to jobs within either the Judicial or the Legal Branch to build experience. The PBs were also restructured along the Branch lines to oversee the career development pathways of the LSOs in the respective tracks. The enduring challenge has been our very small pool of talent, due to our small size. This has been the raison d’etre for keeping with an integrated model. LSOs could be deployed interchangeably across Judicial and Legal Branches over the course of their career. This principle was, in fact, recognised very early on.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, this Bill makes several amendments to the Constitution to restructure the Singapore Legal Service. In essence, the Bill will: (a) establish a separate Judicial Service, overseen by a new Judicial Service Commission (JSC); and (b) make consequential changes to the Legal Service, which will be overseen by a reconstituted Legal Service Commission (LSC). We have consulted the President on the amendments, some of which affect her discretionary powers. The President supports these amendments. I will begin by briefly touching on the history of the Legal Service. It will give Members some context for the changes being proposed today. The framework for the Legal Service was established via the 1959 Constitution, which marked Singapore’s transition to internal self-government. Over the years, adjustments were made to the way the Legal Service was run. But the fundamental structure remained unchanged for many decades, until two rounds of major changes. In 2007, a comprehensive review was done. Major changes were made to create a more systematic talent management system. There were two key changes to the Constitutional structure. First, the composition of the LSC was expanded. Since independence, Members will note that the LSC had comprised the Chief Justice (CJ), the Attorney-General (AG), the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (Chairman/PSC), a Supreme Court Judge and two members of the PSC, as nominated by the Chairman/PSC. Unlike today, all of the members of the LSC were members by virtue of some other office that they held separately. The 2007 changes widened the LSC’s membership. The CJ, AG and Chairman/PSC would continue to be on the LSC.”
“Broadly speaking, potential artefact donations are assessed by NHB’s in-house professional curators who examine each artefact’s significance and value, with an emphasis on how it would help tell our Singapore Story and its potential in enhancing public understanding of our heritage. In addition, the donations must meet broader considerations, such as the extent to which they suit or complement the collecting strategy and curatorial direction of our museum or heritage institution. The artefacts must also be authentic and appropriate for future public display. This approach is benchmarked against international museum best practices, such as those of The British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of New York. MCCY appreciates the generosity of many donors who have contributed to our National Collection and, in turn, to the telling of our Singapore Story. More information on the donation criteria for the National Museum Singapore and the Asian Civilisations Museum can be found on their respective websites.”
“NHB has a close working relationship with many community stakeholders who own their own collections of artefacts. These include individuals, community groups, religious organisations and cultural associations. NHB provides professional advice and support to these stakeholders to help them better maintain their collections, such as through public workshops, seminars and conferences to share best practices in collections care and management. If there are requests for specific types of support, such as help with the conservation or restoration of artefacts, NHB will study these on a case-by-case basis and advise their stakeholders accordingly. NHB also provides grant support for projects that document, safeguard and showcase private collections and which foster greater public appreciation of our shared heritage. For example, NHB supported the Eurasian Association with its Heritage Project Grant1 to refurbish its Eurasian Heritage Centre in May 2016. Several projects by the Singapore Heritage Society have been supported by NHB’s Digital Project Grant, to digitally document manuscripts in Seng Wong Beo Temple and to create 3D scans of underground artefacts from Bukit Brown Cemetery. NHB museums and heritage institutions regularly receive offers of donations from private collections and many of them have been accepted over the years. For instance, the Indian Heritage Centre received a donation of a kavadi from the Chettiar’s Temple Society in 2014 and a group of ritual objects/articles of faith from the Marthoma Syrian Church in Singapore in 2017. However, NHB would not be able to accept all offered donations and has certain guidelines concerning the receipt of collections which help determine whether an artefact donation is accepted or not.”
“[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Leon Perera asked if it is online and if it is free. I think if it is online it will be free and NHB intends to publish it online, so that members of the public will know in advance if something is proposed to be gazetted as a monument. That is not to say that that is the only feedback that NHB gets. It does not stop anyone with any interest from making submissions and giving feedback to NHB at any time, which has happened. So, what the provisions do is to say that the moment something is considered and an NOI is filed in respect of that particular site or building, then that would be published and members of the public will know about it. There were some questions by Members on the operation of the new section 22(a). As I have explained in my opening speech, sometimes, for a site, besides being subject to regulations or orders on preservation, how it is to be conserved, preserved and so on, there is also a question of how it is otherwise maintained by other agencies. In some cases, it may be a sewer, in other cases it may be about the maintenance of the environment. What section 22A does is to provide that these other agencies may come in and deal with their area of operations, their works, without running afoul of PMA. To Mr Leon Perera's suggestion, he should be assured that there is close collaboration between MCCY and also with NHB, together with URA, whenever there are such works that concern or touch on or impact heritage sites or buildings. Finally, on Mr Leon Perera's last point on due process, he can be assured that it applies to all. There is no one particular site that this has in mind. All sites and, in all cases, due process applies to all. I want to assure Mr Leon Perera that due process will always be preserved – pun also intended.”
“For now, it is probably best for us to look at the sites and, given the level of interactivity that NHB has with stakeholders, with owners, with occupiers, with members of the public, with the heritage groups, it is sufficient for now, I believe, to leave it as "reasonable period", so that there is some flexibility in their engagement. And one can also have regard to the specific context of the site in question. And it does not have to be tied to a particular period, in all cases, for all sites or all buildings. Mr Leon Perera raised the point about engagement. There is no provision in the Bill that stipulates a timeline and a plan for engagement, but Mr Leon Perera probably knows that NHB conducts public engagements regularly. In fact, some were done even before this Bill was canvassed and proposed. Likewise, in other jurisdictions, including those provisions that Mr Leon Perera looked at in Hong Kong and the UK, some have, some do not have, a formal process. We have chosen not to have a formal process hard-coded into the legislation, but that does not mean that NHB does not engage. In fact, NHB engages the heritage societies I have mentioned regularly, including NGOs, docent leaders, monument owners and occupiers regularly. And also the grant applicants, those who take grants from NHB, we engage them as our stakeholders. NHB also conducts focus group discussions and public consultations for major projects and initiatives. Our SG Heritage plan is part of that. But also for museum or heritage institution revamps, NHB does public consultations on these. And as Mr Leon Perera pointed out, in these amendments in this Bill, what will happen after the Minister has formed the intention to gazette a site as a monument, that will be published.”
“And I am pleased to say – perhaps because people cannot be physically present as much as they would like to be – that it garnered more than 300,000 views, which is very encouraging. These digital programmes will be with us for the long term, even after the pandemic. And they will expand the menu of the offerings. We have to promote knowledge of and affinity with our National Monuments and what they symbolise in our journey as a nation whilst creating their own new experiences, new memories, with members of the public at these historic places. I would just like to respond to some of the specific points that Mr Leon Perera raised, in terms of trying to strike a balance. I have explained how section 27 is designed to work, but Members will be assured to know that, as far as NHB is concerned, any damage to the heritage site will be an absolute last resort, only if necessary to have a protection of the greater site itself. In terms of the duration of the Notice itself, I have noted Mr Leon Perera's points and we can consider them. But one also needs to appreciate that as you look at gazetting or considering the gazetting of sites for preservation, no two sites will be the same. Some, in fact, after this amendment, will be a site, others might be a building. Some are larger, some are smaller, some have a more complex history and some require a little bit more work, as Mr Leon Perera also outlined, in terms of preserving and making sure that it is something that can be kept well. So, we have framed it as "a reasonable period" in this case; that is the language of the statute. That is one way of doing it. Mr Leon Perera says, "Why don't we follow Hong Kong?", which says one year. But in some cases, one year is too short; in other cases, one year is too long.”
“But the point about adaptive reuse is well-understood and, sometimes, it is a question of trying to balance modernising and preserving the heritage, and adaptively reusing, with imagination, to repurpose the interior, which, sometimes, can maximise preservation and also affinity with the public, who are drawn more to the premises rather than just by the façade. To further increase public awareness and appreciation of our national monuments, NHB also runs a slate of programmes for the public. This includes walking tours for the public, learning journeys for school children, at least in pre-pandemic times, led by volunteer guides who share stories of the history and significance of the National Monuments. There is also the Milestones Through Monuments programme, introduced in 2019, which allows the public to learn more about the history of each monument through onsite exhibits and physical installations. As I have mentioned, COVID-19 has impeded physical programmes to an extent and also NHB's outreach efforts. NHB has also kept up engagement of Singaporeans through digital means, instead of embarking on physical learning journeys for school children. As I have mentioned, NHB offers Monumental Robo-tours. Not only for school children, Members are always welcomed to try for themselves as well. It uses a telepresence robot to create a virtual tour experience for students who can sit in the comfort of their classrooms and still get to experience virtual tours of our national historic and heritage sites. Other initiatives include the Music at Monuments digital programme, a series of musical performances held at National Monuments streamed online, which was released last year.”
“In some cases, such as the Civilian War Memorial, there may not be a single prominent public entrance, or public facing entrance. For these properties, NHB will work with the monument owners to put up prominent signages, where appropriate, to remind the public to pay due respect and so on to the National Monuments. On this, it is really not rocket science to know that you should not, at any time, deface, destroy, damage anything that is in public, let alone something that is of heritage and monumental value. Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about NHB's efforts to educate the public on the significance of national monuments. Indeed, preservation and enforcement powers help us to safeguard National Monuments, but that, in itself, is not sufficient if the public is not aware of its significance and also appreciative of its heritage value. Many of us would have noticed that several of our National Monuments have also been given a new lease of life, to borrow Mr Leon Perera's words, "through careful, adaptive reuse", which is a pragmatic and sustainable approach to preservation. Even though their historic façades and structures are preserved, the internal uses may evolve over time. This allows members of the public to continue to interact with National Monuments whilst, at the same time, appreciating their history and significance. Some examples include the former City Hall and Supreme Court, which are beside the Padang, and now houses the National Gallery. Members may also have gone past the former St James Power Station.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked if there were guidelines or examples to determine what it would mean for the "character or appearance" of a National Monument to be affected no more than "necessary in the circumstances", under the proposed amendments to section 15. Madam, to help monument owners and occupiers fulfil their duty to maintain National Monuments in a manner which befits their status, NHB may issue specific guidelines to include an inventory of the key historic features that ought to be preserved for a particular site. NHB also publishes broad technical guidelines relating to the repair, maintenance and management of monuments, for instance, how, in some cases, painting works should be conducted and how signages at the sites should be installed. These would also include features and actions which would affect the character of the national monument. On that note, I have listened carefully to Mr Leon Perera's suggestion on how we can further help monument owners or occupiers maintain their premises better. I think we are in agreement with him. We will take steps to see how we can explore that better and, in the appropriate cases, support monument owners or occupiers to better maintain the historic features behind the monument. Mr Louis Ng made suggestions, and I think Mr Xie Yao Quan as well, on how we could enhance other areas separately from legislation to better deter damage to National Monuments. Mr Louis Ng suggested clear signs and labels around National Monuments. He might be happy to know that, today, there is already a plaque at a prominent area at each of our National Monuments, such as at the entrance of the monument, to inform the public of the status of the property and also share its significance.”
“But if you take New South Wales as an example, it does provide that, after having given reasonable notice, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a building, object or a place has an item of environmental heritage, he can carry out inspection in that building – so, enter to carry out inspection. In Hong Kong, as Mr Leon Perera said, provided 48 hours' notice is given, the officer concerned may, at all reasonable times, enter and inspect any proposed monument or monuments. In the UK, section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act provides that any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purposes of surveying any building on it, or any other land in connection with the proposal to include the building or exclude it from a list of works and so on. Further, any person duly authorised by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for any of the following purposes that include surveying, ascertaining whether an order has been complied with, ascertaining whether an offence has been or is being committed and ascertaining whether any building or any land or any other land on site is being maintained properly, or whether it is in a proper state of repair. So, these are the provisions elsewhere in other jurisdictions. I am not saying they are on all fours with our provisions. But you can see that the tenor of provisions elsewhere in the world do accept as a premise that there is a need, urgently or, on occasion, to enter a site, and the reason for that is obvious, as you are talking about premises, buildings, monuments which are of significant national and heritage value.”
“To have more clarity on this, section 27(2B) provides that if the owner or occupier of the land is present, then the officer concerned must first, before entering, approach the owner or occupier, show identification, obviously, in that context, to explain the circumstances in which one needs to enter the premises. So, far from the image which I think Mr Leon Perera sketches out where you come in, you barge in and you take down the door, bust open the gates – it is not that kind of scenario. Section 27(2C) further provides that even if the owner or occupier is not on site, but someone else is, then the officer concerned must also approach that person, as long as that person demonstrates or appears to be in charge of the land or site concerned. So, again, every attempt is made to demonstrate that you are either unable to enter, or you have been refused entry, and these two sub-provisions that I have cited show that every effort must be made by the officer concerned to make an attempt to either speak to the owner or occupier or some other person who appears to have control of the site – and all that takes place before entering, as is explicit in both sections 27(2B)(a) and (b). On top of that, once the officer comes into the premises, the purposes for which the officers are present on the premises are circumscribed by section 27(1). In other words, there are certain statutory functions and powers that the officers are in-charge of or responsible for, and those are the purposes for which entry is sought. To the extent that we compare our legislation with comparable legislation overseas, it is obviously in different contexts. One also has to appreciate that the nature of monuments and sites will be different from one jurisdiction to another.”
“First of all, as I have mentioned earlier, this provision is operative only if the Director or Monument Inspector already suspects, on reasonable grounds, that an offence under the four delineated provisions has been or is being committed on the land or site. Members have to bear in mind that this is in relation to a property that is likely to be an old property, an old building or an old site and damage would likely be irreparable and difficult to make up. These four sub-sections that section 27 cites are matters which go to the heart of preserving and protecting a site. Section 13(7), for example, deals with failure to comply with the preservation notice. Section 15(4) is in relation to works or alterations that are being done to the monument or the proposed monument without prior permission. Section 20(1)(a) deals with non-compliance of an enforcement notice. So, in other words, there is already an enforcement notice and the officer suspects that there is a non-compliance with the enforcement notice. Section 22(1) deals with a situation where there is a defacement, damage or otherwise, an interference with the monument or the proposed monument. So, we do not start with a blank canvas. We start with an officer having reasonable grounds to believe that one or more of these four scenarios is or are taking place, or is or are likely to take place. On top of that, the provisions sketched out in section 27(2A) then further provides that the officer must either be unable to enter or is refused entry.”
“These amendments will ensure that our enforcement powers can be sufficiently robust as we expand the range of what can be gazetted as National Monuments. As I mentioned earlier, the proposed amendments we have in this Bill will take reference from the Planning Act. These powers in the Planning Act have worked well to protect the more than 7,000 conserved buildings, but, at present, do not extend to National Monuments. Mr Leon Perera drew a distinction and sought to say that there is no equivalent of forced entry on the premises should there be an apprehension or concern over damage to the property. That is not correct. Section 27(1A) of the Planning Act provides specifically for there to be forced entry in the scenario where the officer concerned is reasonably satisfied that there is a risk of damage to the conserved property or to the property under the Planning Act. That was an amendment that was made in 2017, as I have explained. To Mr Xie Yao Quan's question about powers that go beyond the Planning Act, we had thought about this and considered it, given the relative position of both types of properties. But we, eventually, decided against it. We felt that the proposed amendments in this Bill ought to be sufficient to ensure our objectives of better maintaining and protecting the National Monuments whilst, at the same time, requiring reasonable obligations from the monument owners and occupiers. For Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Ng’s question on the proposed amendments to section 27 for the Director of the National Monument or a Monument Inspector, to forcibly enter the land or site without warrant, Members should look very closely at the provision in question, especially when one contrasts it with comparable legislation in other countries.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the various Members for speaking in support of this Bill and also for the various suggestions that have been raised. I think we can all agree that there is really a need to better safeguard and celebrate our shared heritage and ensure that it is preserved for future generations to enjoy as well. So, the raison d’être behind this Bill is to step up our preservation and also our outreach efforts. I wish to assure Members that NHB will continue to work with and through the community to grow participation as well as ownership of heritage. After all, heritage is about our shared values, our shared vision, our shared sense of identity. We will do that as part of our Our SG Heritage Plan. The amendments in this Bill seek to strengthen our sense of identity and belonging by enhancing the safeguards for our built heritage. Let me plunge straight into addressing the queries raised by Members. First, by Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera on the scope of the enforcement powers under PMA, including our reasons for taking reference from the Planning Act. Mr Xie Yao Quan, on the one hand, said that powers could possibly go beyond that of the Planning Act, given the relative consideration between the conserved property and the heritage monument. On the flip side, Mr Louis Ng asked if the powers could be calibrated further by including an explicit condition of urgency or time sensitivity. I think Mr Leon Perera also had several questions concerning the ambit of section 27. I should assure Members that these powers would be exercised judiciously, as I mentioned. The fundamental consideration is to ensure that the value and distinctive nature of these places, monuments, sites are well-preserved and protected.”
“So, for instance, certain powers may need to be exercised expeditiously at the site to safeguard public health. In those situations, those other public agencies will be able to take the appropriate action. These amendments will also facilitate routine repair and maintenance works, which would not alter or damage a National Monument. Second, Madam, the amendments in clauses 10 and 12(1) of the Bill will require the payment of composition fines collected by NHB into the Consolidated Fund instead of retaining them. This is to give effect to a 2016 policy introduced by the Treasury, after the last set of amendments were made to the PMA. Madam, NHB has, thus far, worked well with owners and occupiers to ensure that our National Monuments are protected in accordance with the dignity they deserve, while at the same time not imposing onerous requirements on owners. Going forward, NHB will continue to support owners and occupiers in their duty to maintain National Monuments. NHB will also take a considered approach to assess the specific circumstances and any concerns on a case-by-case basis, before exercising its powers and responsibilities under the Act. Madam, some of our National Monuments are almost 200 years old – and in the case of the Padang even older. It is our duty to ensure that they continue to stand proudly for many years to come. There must, therefore, also be sufficient measures in place to protect the character and integrity of future proposed National Monuments which are deemed worthy of preservation. These amendments, therefore, seek to strengthen the provisions in the PMA to further safeguard key markers of our national identity, for future generations of Singaporeans. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.06 pm”
“Taking reference from the Planning Act, the amendments to section 27 of this Act will also allow the Director or Monument Inspector to take photographs or make an audio or video recording within the land or site. Additionally, they may make measurements of the land and take samples of water, soil, vegetation or other similar substances from the land or site to better ascertain if there had been activity that has or could negatively impact the monument. Currently, NHB may serve an Enforcement Notice to stop any activity that has caused or is likely to cause danger or damage to a National Monument. We propose correspondingly to also extend this to a proposed National Monument as well. Hence, on that score, we propose to amend section 18 of the Act so that NHB can serve an Enforcement Notice to put a stop to any operation or activity that may place a proposed National Monument at risk of being altered, removed, damaged or destroyed. Members will know that, as I have mentioned earlier, this is for the period in between when a monument is being considered up to the time when it is either no longer being considered as a monument or it is then eventually gazetted as a monument, in which case, the usual protection as a monument would then apply. These enhancements are intended to act as a safeguard to deter potentially errant parties who may cause harm to National Monuments. Madam, the Bill further proposes two sets of miscellaneous amendments to the PMA. First, as the PMA may also overlap with the statutory powers of other public agencies, the new section 22A in clause 8 of the Bill and amendments to section 15 of the Act in clause 6(g) will make clear that the provisions within the PMA will not constrain the statutory powers and duties of other public agencies.”
“The legislation provides for the powers to be exercised judiciously, under specific conditions. Let me take Members through them. First, NHB must suspect on reasonable grounds that an offence under the PMA has been or is being committed in relation to the land or site. These offences, which are defined in the Bill, are serious ones, such as the failure to maintain a National Monument or proposed National Monument in accordance with NHB’s guidelines; the offences also include unauthorised works or alterations; non-compliance with an enforcement notice; and wilful defacement, damage or interference. These are offences which could have grave consequences and irreversibly alter the character and significance of our National Monuments, if they are allowed to transpire. In addition to having reasonable grounds on which to believe that an offence of the nature that I have described has been committed or is being committed, the public servant must also be able to demonstrate that he or she was unable to enter or is refused entry to the land or site in question. In addition to these two conditions, upon entry, the Director of National Monuments or a Monument Inspector can only exercise their powers of entry to carry out their statutory functions in a manner as delineated in section 27(1) of the Act, namely: inspection of the National Monument or proposed National Monument; investigating any contravention or suspected contravention of the PMA; ascertaining whether any of the functions or powers under PMA should be exercised; or taking any action or carrying out any work authorised or required by the PMA.”
“If the Minister decides, in a reasonable time, not to make a Preservation Order after the Notice of Intention is issued, the protections will be lifted accordingly. Mdm Deputy Speaker, when the PMA was last amended in 2009, the Minister then noted that National Monuments ought to have greater heritage value and significance compared to conserved buildings and that illegal alteration works or destruction of any parts of such monuments should not be treated any less seriously than that of conserved buildings. This principle was applied, at the time, to the introduction of higher penalties for unauthorised works, as well as acts of destruction or defacement, for closer alignment to the Planning Act. In 2017, the Planning Act was amended to include powers of forced entry where there is an apprehended commission of an offence and powers to take video or audio evidence on site. We will, therefore, in this Bill, accord monuments and proposed monuments with the same protection which follows the principle, as articulated in 2009. We, therefore, propose to amend the Act to align NHB's powers of enforcement and investigation with those under the Planning Act for conserved buildings. This is to allow NHB to carry out its enforcement and protection duties more effectively and also expeditiously. Just as similar powers are accorded to competent authorities under the Planning Act, the amendments in clause 9 to section 27 of the Act will enable NHB officers who are public servants – namely, the Director of National Monuments or a Monument Inspector – to forcibly enter any land or site without warrant. This allows NHB to intervene, when necessary, to protect National Monuments from alteration, defacement or damage.”
“It follows, naturally, that there should be some form of protection in place to prevent actions to the monument or site, including any alterations and changes that may alter the character and significance of a proposed national monument, before a final decision is made by the Minister to preserve it. Otherwise, the decision to preserve may be entirely defeated or rendered nugatory by alterations and changes taking place during the period in which objections are made and when we are still considering the objections. Such protection is currently not provided for in the PMA. The amendments, therefore, in clauses 6, 7 and 11 will extend protection to monuments or sites that are the subject of NOIs. According protection to a proposed National Monument even before final confirmation is also common in other jurisdictions. For example, under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in Hong Kong, the Authority may declare any place, building, site or structure as the "proposed monument". These places would then have the same protections as those which have been declared as a "monument". Equally, in the UK, local planning authorities may serve a Building Preservation Notice to a building which is of special architectural or historic interest and is in danger of demolition or of alteration in such a way as to affect its character as a building or such interest. While the Notice is in force, the building is subject to the same protection as a listed building, which is the equivalent of a gazetted monument in Singapore. The Hydro Hotel in Leeton, a historic accommodation house, and a barn at Michelmersh Manor Farm are examples of historic properties which have benefited from these protections in Australia and the UK respectively.”
“In addition, extracting, mining, quarrying or interfering with anything or groups of things that evidence human activity, past or present. Under these amendments, which are set out in the new proposed section 15(1A), these new sets of actions will also require NHB's prior approval before they can be carried out on protected sites. Madam, as part of our review of the PMA, we will also make amendments to improve protection of our heritage, to ensure that National Monuments are adequately protected from unauthorised alterations and changes. Before a monument or site is accorded the status of a national monument and protected by law, a Notice of Intention (NOI) is required by section 11 of the Act to be given to its owner and occupier, informing them of the Minister's intention to make a Preservation Order for that monument. This signifies the Government's assessment that the monument or site is of such historical, cultural, traditional, archaeological, architectural, artistic or symbolic significance and national importance as to be worthy of preservation as a national monument. The owner and occupier are given a "reasonable period" to make any objections to the proposed Preservation Order. Every objection will be considered thoroughly by NHB which then submits its recommendations to the Minister. Under the proposed changes in this Bill, the public will also be aware. Once an NOI is served, the monument or site becomes a proposed National Monument and NHB will make this public on its website. Interested parties can share their views and feedback on proposed National Monuments with the NHB.”
“The current definition of "monument" in the PMA allows for the preservation of buildings and structures, as well as sites containing the remains of any such building or structure. The Padang, as an open space, however, does not fall within this definition. The PMA will, therefore, be amended to expand the definition of "monument" to include any "site", including open spaces and inland water, so that sites of national historical significance like the Padang can be preserved. Consequently, the Bill also proposes an amendment to the definition of "monument" in the NHB Act, for alignment with the PMA. Madam, such a definition is consonant with many other overseas jurisdictions. For example, in Malaysia, Brunei, Hong Kong, the US and Australia, they also provide for the protection of historical and heritage sites or places, in addition to buildings and structures. Such protected sites include Central Park in New York City, which I believe needs no introduction, and which was designated in 1963 as a National Historic Landmark. Another example is the Domain in Sydney, a 34-hectare open space, which has been included in the New South Wales State Heritage Register. With the expanded definition to include a site, certain aspects of the PMA will also need to be updated. For instance, in the current PMA, section 15(1) stipulates a list of activities that a person must not do in relation to a National Monument without the permission of NHB. These actions, such as "reconstructing", "repainting" and "renovating", apply primarily to buildings and structures. To better protect sites which are to be preserved as National Monuments, we will also need to control actions, such as clearing, digging, excavating or cultivating horticulture, on the site.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Madam, our National Monuments form an integral part of our national identity. They serve as critical markers of Singapore's historical journey and development from pre-Independence and they are tangible manifestations of shared experiences and milestones in our history which strengthen our sense of belonging. They tell the Singapore Story and stand as enduring testaments to Singapore's history and nationhood. The Preservation of Monuments Act, or PMA as I will call it, sets out the functions and powers of the Government and the National Heritage Board (NHB) in relation to the designation, protection and care for National Monuments. In particular, the PMA lays out the legal protection and the enforcement powers that NHB is empowered with to protect National Monuments from alteration and change, including damage and defacement, which would affect their character and significance. Since the PMA was enacted in 1970, we have gazetted 73 National Monuments, which are accorded the highest level of legal protection amongst all of our built heritage in Singapore. In 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced during the National Day period that the Government would preserve the Padang as a National Monument. Not only is the Padang one of Singapore's oldest open spaces for public recreation, it has also witnessed key milestones in Singapore's history. These include the victory parade celebrating the formal surrender of the Japanese in Singapore in 1945, the swearing-in of Yusof Ishak as Head of State in December 1959 when we obtained self-Government, the announcement of the merger with Malaysia in September 1963, and our first National Day Parade in August 1966.”
“I thank Ms Hany Soh. On her first point, to the extent possible, PTO will obviously try to facilitate. I think it is in everyone's interest, including PTO, to try and find a solution and find consensus on a BR, so that the process can be simplified and expeditious. Failing that, the Member knows that there are a number of options for mediation for the parties to come to a consensus. It is not always standard and not always easy for every such situation because the reasons for the conflict may differ from case to case. But to the extent possible, PTO will try to facilitate. On the Member's suggestion on PayNow, obviously, given the range of different electronic options I have outlined earlier, we will certainly consider PayNow or any other electronic payment platform options as viable alternatives.”
“I thank Dr Shahira. We do review from time to time but do not let the fact that there is or is not a review constrain any suggestions that you might have to give to us. So, we welcome that at any time. Certainly, as I have said earlier with my illustrations, there are some nuances to be looked at and to be appreciated in the contexts of the different standards and the different contextual circumstances in which mental disability or treatment, or even mental capacity, might arise, and how they are defined in the context of certain pieces of legislation. Some seek to diminish responsibility, others seek to deal with the questions of whether you can appropriately consent and yet others deal with the question of whether we should appropriately protect the person with disability. So, if we can find a common standard across the spectrum that deals with all these various policy intents and purposes, then, of course, we welcome the Member to propose a definition to us and we will consider it.”
“For those who need help, including youths and elderly, they can do so through a range of channels in the wider community, such as 24-hour hotlines run by the Samaritans of Singapore and the Institute of Mental Health, as well as counselling services and social-emotional support provided by community mental health teams and Family Service Centres. Some of these services have pivoted online during COVID-19. The Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being co-led by MOH and MSF and chaired by Dr Janil Puthucheary, Senior Minister of State for Health, is bringing together the capabilities and capacities of different agencies to develop an overarching national strategy and action plan on mental health and well-being beyond COVID-19. This will include measures to strengthen support for youths as well as elderly. We need a whole-of-society effort to tackle the issue of mental well-being. Beyond the Government’s efforts, as citizens, we should encourage one another to be open about our challenges and extend kindness and support for those who need help. We encourage those who are interested to help to approach any SG Cares Volunteer Centre or download the SG Cares App to choose from an array of opportunities.”
“In addition, the SG Cares Volunteer Centres have been working closely with the partners in the SG Cares Community Networks to channel support towards community mental wellness initiatives in respective towns. For example, SG Cares Volunteer Centres @ Toa Payoh and Woodlands have been running Neighbour Cares, a community befriending programme aimed at reducing the risk of social isolation amongst seniors living in those towns. In partnership with AIC, SG Cares Volunteer Centres have also channelled volunteers to call seniors to check on their well-being. As part of the Alliance for Action (AfA) for Emerging Needs and Volunteerism, the SG Cares Volunteer Centre @ Jurong East leads efforts to equip volunteers with skills and knowledge on mental wellness to reach out to residents in the Yuhua community who require support. The SG Cares Volunteer Centres have also partnered with Youth Corps Singapore where youth volunteers reached out to low-income families and isolated seniors in the community. To support seniors in staying fit, active and socially engaged, PA will pilot the resumption of selected activities in 20 Divisions from 1 November 2021 for fully vaccinated seniors aged 60 and above. The activities will be organised in a safe environment for these seniors, as well as those seniors who have fully recovered from COVID-19. The activities will include a range of recreational classes from sports and fitness, health and wellness to lifestyle and leisure.”
“MOE recognises that Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) and other interpersonal activities are important for student development and overall well-being and has adopted a calibrated approach to resume student activities, taking reference from the national posture. MOE hopes to resume these activities when it is safe for the students to do so, in order to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 safety measures. Meanwhile, MOE continues to strengthen students’ mental well-being and resilience through Mental Health Education lessons in the revised Character and Citizenship Education curriculum, and early detection and intervention efforts for students in need. This is complemented by additional support measures such as teachers conducting check-ins to monitor students’ well-being and using classroom time to teach students how to cope with the pandemic. To keep our seniors meaningfully engaged and connected from home during the period of tightened measures, our partners, such as the Council for Third Age (C3A), Health Promotion Board, Sport Singapore and PA have also pivoted their activities and talks onto various social media platforms. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has been working with community partners to provide persons at risk of mental health conditions or dementia, with related information and link them to community resources. Befriending providers and volunteers make regular home visits and check-in calls to seniors needing support, while the Silver Generation Office actively reach out to vulnerable seniors at risk of social isolation, such as those with inadequate family or social support.”
“The Government recognises the stress brought about by COVID-19 and is committed to supporting the mental well-being of Singaporeans. Our youths are digital natives, and we are reaching them online and offline. MCCY and NYC have partnered youth sector organisations such as Campus Psy and the Happiness Initiative to curate resources and programmes where youths can learn tips on self-coping and resilience. These resources can be found on Youthopia, NYC’s first-stop portal providing resources and content for youths. MCCY and NYC are partnering with organisations such as The Smart Local to raise awareness on mental well-being and support avenues that youths can turn to. We have also partnered with Calm Collective Asia on dialogues to provide youths with the opportunities to speak openly about mental health, and to share self-care tips such as stress management strategies. In addition, our partners such as Friendzone run online community events where youths can meet up with their neighbours to talk about issues that concern them, thus allowing them to maintain social interactions. Youths can also take part in meaningful volunteering activities organised by Youth Corps Singapore and the People’s Association (PA) Youth Networks. Youths can meet fellow peers and contribute to their communities together. In doing so, they are expanding networks that are vital for social resilience. Youth Corps Singapore has also launched a Community Peer Supporter Programme in collaboration with HPB, which provides youths with the platform to seek support from trained peer supporters. MOE’s approach is to keep schools safe so that they can remain open as far as possible.”
“There will be staff and volunteers at hand to personally guide them on how to download and use their digital vouchers. They will also have the option of requesting for a printed voucher in appropriate cases. Dedicated mobile counters to assist seniors will be set up at selected Residents’ Committee (RC) / Residents’ Network (RN) centres located in areas with a higher concentration of elderly population. Furthermore, the SDO’s Digital Ambassadors in SG Digital Community hubs found in selected CCs and libraries islandwide will also provide such assistance. More help will also be available on the ground through Silver Generation Office Ambassadors who will assist with any queries or request for assistance during their house visits to seniors. To help Singaporeans including seniors, familiarise themselves with the process and steps to receiving and redeeming the vouchers, a step-by-step video guide and infographics produced in English and the vernacular languages will be distributed widely and be available on the CDC website as well as social media channels. We will announce more details closer to the launch date in a few months’ time.”
“Following this, in October 2021, the CDCs started the onboarding of hawkers and merchants on the new CDC Vouchers Scheme. In this effort, we are working closely with associations like Federation of Merchants’ Association, Singapore (FMAS), Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore (HECS), as well as various merchant and hawker associations. We are also working with other key partners such as Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and the SME Centres, Infocomm Media Development Authority / SG Digital Office (IMDA/SDO), Government Technology Agency / Open Government Product (Govtech/OGP) and MOF, in order to reach out to a broad cross section of users and merchants alike. This approach will help the smooth implementation of the scheme. To support hawkers and merchants to get onto this scheme, experienced ambassadors from the CDCs and SDO have been trained and are being deployed ahead of the launch to the HDB estates and heartlands to reach out to hawkers and merchants about the CDC e-vouchers and their participation. The ambassadors will visit hawkers and heartland merchants to introduce the CDC e-vouchers and guide the hawkers and merchants on how to download and use the RedeemSG Merchant app. Business Advisers from ESG and representatives from the merchant and hawker associations will also be assisting in this outreach to hawkers and heartland merchants. To ensure that the needs of the less digitally-savvy are also met, resources and manpower have been prepared to assist special segments of the population like the seniors, the vulnerable and those without smart devices, in accessing and redeeming their e-vouchers. Those who are less digitally-savvy may also approach the Community Club/Centre (CC) for guidance and assistance on the CDC e-vouchers.”
“The five Community Development Councils (CDCs) launched Tranche 1 of the CDC Vouchers Scheme in June 2020 to help defray the cost of living for lower-income families and at the same time, to support hawkers and heartland merchants who were affected by the pandemic. Tranche 1 was well-received by residents and participating hawkers/heartland merchants. The five CDCs then rolled out a second tranche of CDC Vouchers Scheme in January 2021. About 8,000 heartland merchants and hawkers participated in the scheme which saw residents using the vouchers islandwide across the two tranches. The new CDC Vouchers Scheme, which was announced at Budget 2021, provides for $130 million CDC vouchers to be distributed to all Singaporean households. The new CDC Vouchers Scheme is designed to be as easy to use as possible. It will be provided via an end-to-end digital solution designed to provide users with a convenient and seamless way to receive, accept and redeem the CDC vouchers. The improved concept and system were developed in response to feedback and suggestions from users, as well as hawkers and merchants who had participated in the earlier tranches of the scheme. This included having faster pay-outs and to avoid having to collect, count and submit paper vouchers. In addition, this move towards e-vouchers is also aligned with the Government’s Smart Nation initiative and drive to reduce our carbon footprint, with less printing and use of paper materials. The CDCs, together with the help of Govtech, have gone through several rounds of trials to test the system with different hawkers and merchants, as well as residents of all ages and walks of life, taking on board their views as appropriate.”
“In the lead-up to the Games, Sport Singapore launched the "One Day" campaign, celebrating our athletes’ sporting journeys and paying tribute to their resilience and sacrifice in the pursuit of sporting excellence. The National Youth Sports Institute (NYSI) has also been featuring the sporting journeys of our youth athletes through video interviews and stories, showing how far these athletes have come. It is important that we provide Singaporeans with opportunities to: (a) identify and connect with our athletes; (b) follow the action; and (c) lend encouragement to the athletes in their journeys, amidst their victories and disappointments. Our encouragement and support for our athletes count the most when the journey gets challenging. Our contingents have since returned home from the Olympics and Paralympics Games, having flown the Singapore flag high competing with the world’s best athletes. Our athletes inspire us to chase our dreams. Their journeys exemplify grit, perseverance, resilience and never giving up. We look forward to seeing more of our athletes in action at the upcoming Hanoi Southeast Asian Games and ASEAN Para Games, the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games, as well as Hangzhou 2022 Asian Games and Asian Para Games. Let us all continue to rally together as One Team Singapore to support our athletes in their sporting journeys.”
“Many Singaporeans followed and supported our athletes taking part in the recent Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Amidst COVID-19 restrictions, the use of social media tools was effective in sharing with Singaporeans the journey of our Team Singapore athletes at the games. For instance, MCCY and Sport Singapore social media platforms helped to keep Singaporeans updated on the progress of our athletes and captured some of the courtside action, alongside Mediacorp’s broadcast of the Games action on Channel 5 and meWATCH channels. Over 1,200 Team Nila volunteers rallied to watch the games live, organised Facebook Live shows to chat about our athletes, created videos to cheer them on and posted messages of support. There were also organic ground-up efforts, like the Singapore Badminton and Singapore Water Polo FB Groups with a combined following of more than 6,000 members, who supported our athletes by sharing their progress on social media. Singaporeans gathered to catch our athletes "live" in action at many ActiveSG centres and community centres. Some schools, such as Nanyang Primary School, screened the Games action during recess, to allow students to follow the competitions and cheer on our athletes. Our overseas fans also rallied alongside us to show support for our athletes, an example being the virtual cheering session organised by friends from Mihama Town in Aichi Prefecture for Pin Xiu’s 50-metre Backstroke-S2 event. This was attended by Pin Xiu’s family, the Mayor of Mihama Town Mr Saito Koichi, Parliamentary Secretary (Culture, Community and Youth) Mr Eric Chua, MFA mission officials, as well as Team Nila volunteers.”
“I hope that our hon Member, along with other Singaporeans, will continue to cheer our athletes on and express support for them. It is a great boost to their well-being and spurs them on to continue to do their best for the nation.”
“SSI and NYSI are keenly aware that attention to the mental health of our athletes must be paid throughout their sporting journey and not just during competition seasons. To this end, in 2018, SSI introduced a mental health literacy programme which equips coaches and relevant personnel like sports administrators to help identify and support athletes who are experiencing issues with their mental well-being. NYSI has also added a Continuing Coach Education (CCE) module on the Youth Coaching Online platform to educate coaches in this aspect. Sport Singapore also proactively checks on our athletes’ mental health. A well-being survey was added to the spexMedical check-up in 2020 to screen for possible psychological and mental distress, including eating and sleeping disorders. Potential cases are then flagged and assessed by SSI’s sport science team. If clinical expertise is required, they will be referred to the Singapore Sport and Exercise Medicine Centre (SSMC@SSI) for further follow-up with a trained psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. Finally, SSI and NYSI also partner the respective National Sport Associations (NSAs) to build the mental resilience of our athletes by equipping them with coping mechanisms and adjustment capabilities so that they can self-regulate, recognise symptoms of weak mental health and practise self-care. One boost to emotional well-being for our Team Singapore athletes is knowing that they have the support of Singaporeans when they have put in their best – and that it is not conditional on only winning medals. For the recent Tokyo Olympics, our athletes received many handmade encouragement cards from well-wishers. The steadfast support of fellow Singaporeans through the ups and downs provides an effective boost to mental and emotional wellness.”
“The Government is committed to supporting our Team Singapore athletes throughout their sporting journey. Athlete Life Management is an area of focus for the Singapore Sport Institute (SSI) and the National Youth Sports Institute (NYSI). It concerns itself with integrating sports performance with key aspects of an athlete’s life and total well-being, including mental well-being. Preparation for major games must cater to the all-round needs of an athlete – going beyond physical readiness to mental readiness. On the latter, ahead of major competitions, SSI and NYSI assign Sport Psychologists and Athlete Life personnel to provide psychological and mental well-being support for our national athletes, which may include one-on-one consultations, and imparting skills to athletes to manage their mental and emotional conditions. These strategies will be tailored to the competition conditions. For the recently concluded Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, due to the COVID-19 movement restrictions, SSI Psychologists produced a travel essentials kit for athletes to track and monitor their mood, document their reflections and engage them in positive thinking. After the Olympic Games, the Sport Psychologists conducted individual post-competition debriefs for the athletes. These sessions typically help the athletes to process their emotional responses to the performance outcomes, facilitate check-ins on their mental health and well-being, and encourage the athletes to plan ahead for their next milestones – be it the Southeast Asian Games, Asian Games or Paris 2024 Olympic Games. As the Tokyo Olympics also marked the last major outing for some of our athletes, such sessions also discussed transition plans to prepare them for their post-competition career.”
“We agree with the Members that our corporates and public’s support are essential to realise an inclusive society, including in sports. We look forward to more in our society working with us to build a Singapore where every individual has the opportunity to realise their talents and achieve their fullest potential.”
“The Major Games Award Programme (MAP) and the Athlete Achievement Award (AAA) are private award schemes. They are managed by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and the Singapore National Paralympic Council (SNPC) respectively, which are non-governmental organisations. The monetary rewards offered under the MAP and AAA are raised and decided respectively by the SNOC and SNPC. MCCY will support SNOC and SNPC to engage corporate and other entities to close the gap between the MAP and AAA. The disparity in cash awards does not reflect how Government values our para-athletes vis-à-vis our able-bodied athletes. The Government is committed to providing the best support for Team Singapore athletes – equally for both able-bodied and para-athletes – by building a High Performance Sports (HPS) system that enables them to pursue their sporting ambitions and achieve their goals. We also endeavour to enhance participation at the grassroots level, provide pathways to our athletes so that they can aspire to their own peaks and support each athlete as they compete on the international arena. Today, the Government invests about $70 million annually into the HPS system that provides well-rounded and customised support for both our able-bodied and para-athletes. Our system is one that is merit-based and support is tailored to the needs of our athletes and the requirements of the sport. The Government also set up the One Team Singapore Fund (OTSF) in 2017 where we match sporting donations up to $50 million. The OTSF donations augment the HPS funding to both our abled-bodied and para-athletes. To date, the Government has matched approximately $15 million of donations.”
“So, all of these factors will be taken into account, but for flexibility purposes, there is not a prescribed timeframe in the framework of this Bill for the revocation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I have addressed all of the questions raised by Members. I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I would add that the Minister is very unlikely to reach a conclusion that it is in our public interest, where circumstances surrounding the death is either unknown, unclear or it is not apparently the reason, as set out, through a disease or manifest cause and where there might be a suspicion of foul play, then in those situations, in assessing public interest, the Minister will obviously have to consider the PP's position as far as these considerations are concerned. Mr Ng asked for a clarification of the circumstances in which the Minister's certificate might be revoked. When deciding whether to issue the certificate in the first place, in other words, before we have to get into a situation where we have to decide what happens when we revoke it, the question as to what is public interest, whether it is appropriate in this case, whether we should be granting the certificate, will be judiciously considered. This minimises the possibility of having to subsequently reconsider similar circumstances, as far as possible. Obviously, there could be a change in circumstances. There could be a scenario where the foreign state, for example, withdraws the request for the certificate or that there is now some other material that is known now, that was not available at that point in time. Obviously, these are matters which might arise. There is no time limit prescribed for the revocation. But, obviously, the Minister will have to consider the time elapsed that has gone by, the prejudice, if any, that may have been incurred as a result of the body's movement and whether it is practical in the first place, if the body had already gone back, had undertaken a foreign post-mortem examination and it is not feasible to have that review done in Singapore thereafter.”
“For example, the foreign state may wish to maintain the integrity of the body – I think Ms Lim mentioned "preserve the dignity" – so that it may conduct its own post-mortem examination on its resident or citizen. On other occasions, the death may have taken place in Singapore, but the cause of death is really only tangentially connected to Singapore and is instead more closely connected with events and circumstances overseas. Mr Tan asked whether it is motivated by any particular occasion. It is really a question of comity, as far as we can to try and accommodate in appropriate situations. The point here is, at this point in time, the Act does not allow any leeway, whatsoever. What these amendments do is not to say that in all such requests they will be granted but it creates the possibility of acceding to these requests when they come in. Mr Pillai asked about the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or CLTPA. I understand where Mr Pillai is coming from, when he says that why is there no similar requirement for the Public Prosecutor (PP)'s consent in this case. Well, first of all, the PP's views, whether or not they are going to be conducting further investigations, its sense of whether there is any impropriety which merits further review or investigation, will all be taken into account. It is not the same framework as the CLTPA here because in that situation, we are dealing with consent to detain a person. Here, it is in relation to a request by a foreign party to not conduct a post-mortem here and to release the body to a foreign state. And, of course, the whole gamut of matters that surround the public interest criteria, including whether or not the PP's view is that there should be a further investigation, will be taken into account.”
“Ms Lim had asked about the exemption, section 17A. Ms Lim, to paraphrase her, suggested that there might be circumstances where the request could be motivated by less noble reasons, nefarious reasons, I think, was the phrase that was used. I would like to assure Ms Lim that if such a situation arises, then it would not, obviously, be in the public interest for us to accede to that request. If there are suspicious circumstances surrounding a head of state's or a foreign government minister's death in Singapore, then, obviously, it is not in our country's interest to give up on the investigation and to let the foreign state take over the investigations and, in fact, to completely remove the body from Singapore altogether. So, I think that she should be reasonably assuaged. On the suggestion that there might be a quick handover, there are steps in section 17A(2) which sets out the different checks that the Minister will have regard to prior to issuing the certificate and this includes looking at information from a forensic pathologist, even directing the forensic pathologist to investigate the apparent cause, to have some degree of satisfaction, and also the Minister may direct the Police to provide any further assistance that a pathologist might require. So, all of these steps give us the assurance that the death has not occurred in nefarious or unusual circumstances, and there is enough, sufficient public interest for us to accede to the request. Mr Tan asked about the rationale of section 17A. The point is this. There are circumstances where a foreign state may have a legitimate interest in the death and request that Singapore does not conduct our post-mortem examination.”