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 21 of 45.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their quick, short and sharp speeches. I will try to make my answers equally short. Mr Ng asked what were the mandatory requirements for the preliminary investigation. There are no mandatory steps in this. But it really depends on the particular circumstances of the death and the context in which it occurs, and whether or not there are particular areas of concern that the Coroner has, which will then drive the steps to be taken in the preliminary investigation. Mr Ng, Ms Lim and Mr Tan asked about the current process, whether there are safeguards, whether we are doing this because there is a manpower issue, and it is driven entirely by this. First of all, I will remind Members what I said at the outset, that we have been doing this for a couple of years now, since the Coroners Act came into force in 2010, using a variety of different steps, technology, video usage, RFID, QR coding. And I think I described the process in some detail earlier. We looked at that, we looked at the records, we looked at the reliability of that system and, as I said just now, we found that as far as we could tell, there were no misidentifications using this system. This then gave us enough confidence to propose this suggestion. It is not to say that because of this that there will be a flood of non-inspections or non-viewing of the bodies as a result of this. I think it just gives the Coroner the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, assessing the probative value of each of the different sources of identification, making an overall assessment and deciding whether or not it is sufficiently safe not to actually view the body. I do not think I will go into the specific steps again. I think Members can take reference from what I had said earlier.”
“The reiteration that we will work with the private sector and that there is a lot of good that will come out of this partnership, as I have mentioned earlier in my opening speech. I underscore the point that we will reimagine our spots framework to ensure that all levels of participation from the grassroots through to the elite sporting talents will be given opportunities through programmes like the spexScholarship and others to allow athletes to realise their full potential. On this, let me come back to the Motion and reiterate our gratitude, our thanks and our deepest, warmest congratulations to all of our TeamSG athletes, Olympians, Paralympians and, in particular, our Gold Medalist champion from Tokyo 2020 and now five-time Gold Medal winner Paralympian, Ms Yip Pin Xiu on her award today. Thank you very much, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That this House congratulates our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, in particular Ms Yip Pin Xiu, our five-time Paralympic Gold Medalist, for their achievements at the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games." (proc text)] [(proc text) Thereupon, hon Members stood to their feet and applauded. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the various Members who have spoken in support of the Motion so wholeheartedly. And even as we celebrate the successes today, I thank them for their vision and suggestions in looking forward, looking ahead on what else we can do. I thank Mr Seah for his pledge to continue to support sports and, in particular, for him, in his capacity in FairPrice, to lead the initiatives to contribute towards sports. I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Ms Denise Phua's suggestions and also, their reiteration that sports, like many other situations in life, we have to cater to the vicissitudes of the circumstances and that that itself ought not to diminish the achievements of our sporting talents. As usual, Ms Phua has also set me a task – and also, thank you for acknowledging my alternative career as a sports commentator. I will take on board the suggestions and, of course, be accountable to the various initiatives that she has set out. I have no doubt she will ask me to explain the dashboard to her, in her words, on a different occasion. I thank Mr Mark Chay for sharing his own experience, unique as it is, once an Olympian and now coach of a Paralympian champion. Your insights being in the system, showing us your view from the inside, understanding the different moving parts between Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC), Singapore National Paralympic Council (SNPC), Singapore Disability Sports Council (SDSC), all the acronyms, coming together, really say a lot about the village and the support that we have as a village to ensure the successes of our athletes. I thank Ms Poh for the very thoughtful and considerate suggestions. There were many of them. We will take them on board and review them closely with SportSG. And finally, I thank Mr Sitoh for his suggestions.”
“Members could see from some of the examples I outlined earlier how we approach each elite athlete uniquely, differently and how we support them with differentiated, curated support. We will also continue to work with our sports stakeholders in our ecosystem, from our schools to NSAs, SNOC, SNPC, ActiveSG as well as the private academies and clubs, working together to build a strong, cohesive, vibrant sporting culture in Singapore. For us to achieve sporting success on the international stage, we will need a single-minded desire and pursuit to excel, and a unity of purpose amongst all our stakeholders coming on board, pulling together in the same direction and making sure that we produce the best that we can at many more of these international elite events.”
“To ensure the mental well-being of our athletes, SSI also sent sport psychologists to support our team on the ground in Tokyo. Our sailors, Kim and Cecilia, were accompanied by their team psychologist, Joyce, whose task was to keep them focused and positive throughout the Games. It was a long, enduring race, several races. I saw for myself how critical this was. Kim and Cecilia, if you meet them, they have an intuitive bond between them, an outstanding chemistry. When you are out at sea, battling the winds, the waves and your opponents, for a few hours, this can make all the difference. So, Mr Speaker, at this juncture, let me reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting and enhancing sports for all, both in growing the base, so that we can have more active participants and more athletes at the grassroots, and in supporting our elite athletes as they chase success on the podium at the world's best international events. The Government invests about $70 million annually into the HPS system. But it is not just about financial commitment. At the heart of it all, MCCY’s commitment in both active grassroots sports participation and also HPS is rooted in our fundamental belief that we must give every aspiration the best possible chance of being turned into a reality; for every individual, the opportunity to harness their own talents and chase their own dreams. And I stress the word "individual", because no two athletes are alike, even on team sports. The smallest detail and differentiating factor can matter a lot. And our athlete support structure needs to be personalised and adaptable as such.”
“Finally, my appreciation goes out to the Singapore Sport Institute (SSI) and the National Youth Sports Institute (NYSI). Their work is often unseen and under-rated as well. But it has been a key ingredient in our High Performance Sports ecosystem and a real value-add when milliseconds or mere millimetres can make all the difference. Working alongside other partners in the sports ecosystem, SSI and NYSI put the athlete at the centre of what they do, supporting them in a variety of ways. This includes sports medicine, sports science, physiotherapy, nutrition and also psychological support before, during and after the Games, so that our athletes can be single-minded and focused on giving of their best in dealing with the competition. Take for example SSI’s bio-mechanist Marcel Rossi. Marcel supported our para swimmers in Tokyo. He would take a video of them at each race and analyse their every motion, every stroke, and then on that basis, guide them to make real time adjustments between the heats in the morning and the finals in the evening to optimise performance for the next race. Our sports scientists studied para-archer Syahidah, studied her gait and posture, built a seat, customised fully to fit her body structure, weight and shooting position, so that she would have stability and comfort, with each arrow she dispatches. A specially designed year-long nutrition programme was also made for Nur Aini, so that she could get into competition weight while building up sufficient strength at the same time. This paid off when she attained her personal best lift in her qualification event leading up to Tokyo. It was a very credible performance of 77 kilogrammes. And I know that because I tried it at about 50 kilogrammes, and I struggled.”
“] Sir, at this juncture, I would like to take some time to acknowledge and thank the many others who have stood tall and stood behind our Team Singapore athletes. You have given your unstinting, selfless support to our athletes. We know it takes a village. And each one of you is a valued member of that village. First, I thank the families, caregivers and friends of Team Singapore athletes. They are the unseen and often unsung heroes whose enduring love, sacrifice, belief give our athletes the courage, strength and the platform to turn aspiration into reality. Second, I am very grateful to the coaches of our athletes, the various National Sports Associations (NSAs), National Disability Sports Associations (NDSAs), as well as the Singapore Disability Sports Council (SDSC) for believing in the power of the possible in our athletes and being there for them every step of the way, supporting them on their journey in every training and at every competition. We recognise their collective efforts in grooming our sportspersons into the world-class athletes that they are today, from the tangible work of providing the best training environment, the best training instruction, to the intangible value of being mentors and role models that our athletes can look up to. Third, I would also like to extend our thanks to the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and Singapore National Paralympic Council (SNPC), as well as our Chefs de Mission for the Olympics and Paralympics, Dr Ben Tan and Ms Shirley Low, who are both here, for leading our contingent of athletes to Tokyo and bringing them home safely and soundly. Both of them were completely invested in our team, and their presence and leadership made a significant difference.”
“But taken together, you and your achievements have really served to unite us as Singaporeans and inspire us deeply. My Cabinet colleagues and I discussed how we could appropriately recognise Pin Xiu’s achievements. I am very happy to announce that we intend to create a new President’s Award for Inspiring Achievement, and to make the inaugural presentation of this award to Pin Xiu. President Halimah Yacob has agreed to this proposal. [Applause.] Mr Speaker, this new award will sit alongside the other awards which are presented by the President for outstanding accomplishments. This award will recognise Singaporeans who have overcome personal adversity and led inspiring lives. Through their outstanding and wide-ranging achievements and contributions to society, they are role models who instil a sense of national pride in fellow Singaporeans. This prestigious award will be conferred by the President to deserving recipients who meet its highest qualifying criteria. It will be presented to Singaporeans with fitting achievements and may not be given out every year. Pin Xiu has demonstrated these exceptional qualities. She has stared adversity in its face, time and time again, overcame it. She is truly an inspiration to Singaporeans and it is only appropriate that she will now become the inaugural recipient of this award. I am certain that she will trailblaze a path for many more to follow in her footsteps. And I believe this is precisely what will give Pin Xiu her biggest satisfaction: to see other Singaporeans rise above adversity, take on challenges and be themselves, the positive change-makers. So, on behalf of this House, let me offer my warmest and deepest congratulations to Pin Xiu, as well as to all our Olympians and Paralympians. [Applause.”
“I also felt such an immense sense of pride and even now as I remember and relate the event, I feel goosebumps just thinking about it. And I thank Pin Xiu very much for gifting us such precious moments of national pride and inspiring Singaporeans over so many years. Outside of the pool, Pin Xiu has made extensive contributions to our nation. As a former Nominated Member of Parliament, Pin Xiu was the voice of her generation. She was a passionate advocate on issues such as sports and inclusion, and spoke out articulately against campus sexual violence and workplace harassment. Today, she continues to impact the lives of many through her service and contributions on the Purple Parade’s Working Committee, Singapore Disability Sports Council Executive Committee, the World Para Swimming High Support Needs Group, the National Youth Council and the Safe Sport task group. These are not just names of committees that we rattle off to Pin Xiu. She herself uses each as an opportunity and a platform to make positive and enduring changes to our society. In 2008, Pin Xiu was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for her accomplishments at the 2008 Beijing Paralympics. Pin Xiu, your trophy cabinet must be packed by now. But I hope and I think you can find space for one more way in which we can honour and recognise you. Your innate quality to inspire Singaporeans, your consistency in sporting achievement at the absolute highest level, your contributions in so many areas away from sport and your own quiet, unassuming personality, which I know hides a deep personal conviction to be a positive change-maker, each already amazing in its own right. And I am sure Members will agree with me.”
“Familiar ground for you. It is hard to find words to describe Pin Xiu, our most decorated Paralympian. At the age of 29, Pin Xiu blazed her own path both in and out the pool. At the 2008 Beijing Paralympics, Pin Xiu brought home her and Singapore’s first ever Paralympic gold and silver medals. Pin Xiu went on to clinch two more gold medals and also set two world records at the 2016 Rio Paralympics. These records continue to be unmatched, unbroken today. This year, she dominated the pool yet again, defending her title in the women’s S2 50-metre and 100-metre backstroke events, with some rather devastating performances. She won the 100-metre with a margin of more than nine seconds. That is a total of six medals, of which five are gold medals, across 13 years, over four Paralympic Games. It shows that Pin Xiu, or PX, as she is sometimes more affectionately known, has tremendous longevity and staying power. Each time her rivals try and make a move on her, to close down on her, to catch up with her, she has found that something extra, whether it is more power in her strokes, greater rotation of her shoulders or just the sheer courage of conviction and determination to reach the wall first. Many Singaporeans will remember vividly the two gold medal ceremonies in Tokyo – I did – the moment as our national anthem reverberated through the Tokyo Aquatics Centre and broadcast around the world. I am sure we all celebrated her victory, took pride in her triumph, savoured the moment as our flag rose high, and rose first. How many of us had wet eyes as we watched Pin Xiu herself fight back her own tears of pride and elation as her achievements, she knew, brought the nation together?”
“But what is even more amazing is that both had suffered a crash just days before their event. Their front tire had burst and they collapsed on the road at great speed. Bruised, battered, but not beaten; thereafter, turned in superb timings and achieved those two personal bests. Steve is here in the House today in his distinctive bright red hair. If he looks familiar to all of you, it is because in 2015, Steve was the captain of the five-a-side football team in the ASEAN Para Games. He is truly an inspiring sportsman. Our contingent flag-bearer, Diroy Noordin, he left his mark on the field, quite literally. He threw a 9.85-metre and then 9.92-metre in the men’s F40 shot put final – he shattered the national record on both occasions. It is tough enough to break one national record. He did it twice, same event and he broke his own national record! Our Equestrian team – Max, Gemma and Laurentia – put in some stirring performances. It really warmed me up to see them compete with a smile, writ large across their faces. Laurentia and her horse, Banestro, came in fifth in the Individual Freestyle Test Finals. This is despite Laurentia being stuck in Britain in the lead-up to the Olympics for a year due to travel restrictions, separated from her coach and her horse, after what was really meant to be just a two-week break. Our swimmers: Wei Soong, he came, oh so close, just 0.16 seconds away from a podium finish. He also broke two national records, both his own. Sophie Soon held off her competitors and finished fourth in the Women’s SB12 100-metre Breaststroke. A very impressive debut, all round, for both of them and I am sure at this rate, we will see them on the podium in no time. Last, but certainly not least, Yip Pin Xiu. We warmly welcome Pin Xiu back to this Chamber.”
“Amita held her own in the opening round against the eventual gold medalist, whilst Kiria showed skill and poise well beyond her years. You could not tell that they were Olympic debutants. Our experienced trio of Joseph, Ting Wen and Zheng Wen put up a strong fight against a very strong field in swimming. It has been a difficult season for them and they know that they are judged on very high standards and would be the first to admit that they are capable of much better. But they have mettle. And they will bounce back, I am sure, in the next competition. Let me turn now to speak about our Paralympians. They have been an inspiration to all of us. Many of you would have watched them on the channels. They showed us what it means to defy the odds and not be defined or constrained by physical limitations. I spoke earlier about how the pandemic was disruptive to training and competition plans. But the impact of the pandemic to our Paralympians was perhaps far greater. Whilst some could go online for training and instruction, this was not as easy for those who are visually impaired when they were confronted with new modalities to get instruction and to do training. Despite these challenges, I heard no excuses from them when I dropped in from time to time over the last few months on their training. They just had an unwavering desire to get on with it, put their shoulders to the grind, and focus on doing Singapore and Singaporeans proud at the Paralympics. Let me share a few stories from our Paralympic contingent. Our debutant tandem cyclist Steve and his competition partner Kee Meng, they clocked two personal bests in the Men’s B 1,000-metre Time Trial and the Men’s B 4,000-metre Individual Pursuit.”
“And true to form, he came home after Tokyo, dusted down and went back straightaway on the road to train. He is not here today because he is training in Europe. And I was just told a moment ago that Jia Min would be joining him shortly. Kean Yew sent me a message over the weekend and asked me to thank Parliament on his behalf for the honour of the recognition today and assures us all that he is training hard for his next goal. In table tennis, many would have seen Mengyu battle hard, fought hard despite having an old injury flare up at the most unfortunate of times. Mengyu had about the toughest draw possible. In her inspired run to fourth place at the Olympics, she was drawn against four of the world’s top 10 ranked table tennis players, she beat two of them along the way. Mengyu may have missed a medal, but I think we all saw for ourselves her dedication, her grit and her fighting spirit against the world’s best players. The women’s team, along with Feng Tianwei and Lin Ye, had a tough draw, meeting world number one, China, along the way before losing out. Our sailors too had a very good outing. Kimberly and Cecilia made history as the first Singaporeans to ever compete in an Olympics Medal Race for sailing and they overcame great odds in all 12 of their races for the Women’s 49er FX, navigating not just unpredictable weather but also racing against much more experienced well-seasoned teams. They emerged as the top Asian team. In fact, no other Asian team even made it to the top 10 medal race. Our fencers, Amita and Kiria, had a hard but exciting debut. They were pitted against higher ranked, more experienced opponents. But their agility, their speed and precision came through.”
“Some others, like Cecilia, Kimberly and Ryan, in Sailing, chose to leave home comforts months before Tokyo 2020, stayed on the road so as to continue training in suitable conditions with the winds and the waves, without having the down time of quarantine or isolation. Despite these challenges, Team Singapore made history at these Games. For the first time, we had athletes represented in Equestrian, Marathon Swimming and Diving. Of our 23-athlete strong contingent, 17 were Olympic debutants. These are very encouraging figures and a testament to the growth and potential of High Performance Sports (HPS) in Singapore. Beyond representation at the Olympics, the results that our 23 Team Singapore athletes also made us proud. I am sure that many in the House would have caught a glimpse of Team Singapore in action on screen, on meWATCH, but allow me to share some highlights as an observer in the stands. We had two Olympic badminton debutants who did us very proud. Yeo Jia Min was a match away from the knock-out rounds. She was up against a much higher-ranked Korean opponent. She lost that match. I know she was disappointed, but the pain of defeat will spur her on even more. Loh Kean Yew came up against the reigning Asian Games champion and world number seven, Jonatan Christie, for a place in the knock-out round. Kean Yew rose to the occasion and pushed his much-favoured opponent right to the brink. There was really nothing to choose in the end between Kean Yew and the Asian Games champion and I am sure Kean Yew will be back on court much stronger. In fact, when I spoke with him shortly after he lost that match and asked him about his plans, he gave me his customary wide cherubic grin and said – of course, Paris 2024!”
“Sir, I will also re-affirm our Government’s commitment to supporting and enhancing sports in Singapore and to support Singaporeans at every level from grassroots participation through to the very pinnacle of elite sporting achievement. Let me start with the Olympics. Our Olympians competed on the world’s biggest sporting stage against the very best athletes in the world, competing for the highest honours. To compete at this level requires years, if not decades, of dedication and discipline, hard work and sacrifice, and meticulous, thoughtful, careful planning. Even then, there are no guarantees of success. Often, uncontrollable factors, like injuries, strokes of luck, misfortune come into play. And, as we witnessed, a pandemic intervened at the cruellest of times, just as our athletes began their work on the final lap to peak for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. The pandemic had severely curtailed our athletes’ training plans, decimated opportunities to travel, either for qualification, or to hone their sporting instincts at other competitions, to keep them primed and match sharp. But our athletes adjusted, adapted, they fought hard to reach their peaks again, after the postponement of the Games in July 2020. We all heard how Joan Poh went from sculling back to nursing, serving in the front line in the battle against COVID-19, before taking time out again, to trial and then qualify for the Olympics. Many of our athletes made adjustments themselves: Caroline Chew, Amita Berthier and Tan Sze En trained overseas, and went directly to Tokyo.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "that this House congratulates our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, in particular Ms Yip Pin Xiu, our five-time Paralympic Gold Medalist, for their achievements at the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games." [Applause.] Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome our Team SG athletes who are seated in Chamber today. After a year of uncertainty and delays, we fielded our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians in Tokyo 2020 to compete with the world's best, to represent Singapore at the highest sporting showcase. We sent a total of 23 athletes across 12 sports to the Olympics; 10 athletes across six sports to the Paralympics. Our athletes came home victorious with two gold medals and five national records, alongside numerous personal bests and many other personal inspiring stories. But beyond these tangible achievements, our athletes returned to a Singapore uplifted by their sportsmanship, touched by their own moments of vulnerability, and, above all, inspired by their dogged pursuit of excellence as they fought tooth and nail, to put Singapore on the international sporting arena. Together with President of the Singapore National Olympic Council and Speaker Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, and Chairperson of the Singapore National Paralympic Council, Dr Teo-Koh Sock Miang, and our Chefs de Mission, I had the privilege of supporting and cheering on our Olympians and Paralympians from the sidelines and stands in Tokyo. So, I wish to take this opportunity to share some snippets with this House – not just of the Games itself, but also of the challenges which our athletes faced in the lead-up, the run-up that was disrupted by the global pandemic.”
“Following the return of our contingents from the Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics, we have already commenced our review, which takes into account not only the performance of the athletes, but also the operating environment and challenges in the run-up to the Tokyo Olympics and during the Games. This allows us to analyse performance systemically, and to consider this against the backdrop of our national High Performance Sports (HPS) system and strategies. An important priority is to enable our national athletes to train and compete uninterrupted amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic situation, to ensure that preparations for upcoming international competitions and Major Games are not affected. We will also refresh our understanding of the competitive landscape, and learn from the experience of other countries and their HPS systems. Each review contributes to the continued improvement of our HPS system and strategies, including how we strengthen our talent pathways and optimise the training and development of our athletes. This allows us to continually learn and build on our experiences for future Major Games, including the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games and beyond. Our current focus is to prepare for the busy Major Games schedule in 2022, including the Southeast Asian Games and ASEAN Para Games, the Commonwealth Games, as well as the Asian Games and Asian Para Games.”
“At the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Singapore was represented by 33 athletes across 12 sports1 and six para sports2. MCCY applauds all our Team Singapore athletes for their resilience and determination in overcoming the challenges and disruptions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to qualify and compete at the Games. We also recognise the tireless efforts of the joint Games Secretariat (comprising staff from Sport Singapore, Singapore National Olympic Council and Singapore National Paralympic Council) and the medical teams who supported our athletes in Tokyo. There were a number of encouraging performances at the Tokyo Olympics, such as breakthrough performances from paddler Yu Mengyu who finished 4th in the Women’s Singles Table Tennis3 and the Women’s 49erFX crew comprising Kimberly Lim and Cecilia Low who achieved the best ever performance by Team Singapore sailors at the Olympics4. Team Singapore Paralympians achieved five National Records, seven Personal Bests and two Season Bests, including Ms Yip Pin Xiu, who successfully defended her Women’s S2 50 metre(m) and 100m Backstroke titles which she won at the Rio 2016 Paralympics. On the other hand, we experienced our share of disappointments at the Games. Our athletes, more than anybody else, are disappointed when they do not perform up to their expectations and are motivated by the desire to come back stronger and better. After each Major Games outing, there is a thorough review of Team Singapore’s performance, incorporating views from the athletes, coaches and the National Sports Associations (NSAs).”
“MCCY focuses on building a structured and comprehensive system to provide sustained support for Team Singapore athletes of all abilities to pursue their sporting aspirations and achieve their potential. The Major Games Awards Programme and Athletes’ Achievement Awards are private award schemes managed by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and Singapore Paralympic Council (SNPC) respectively. We congratulate all our athletes who represented Singapore at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, who have made us all proud with their commitment to excellence and their fighting spirit. MCCY and Sport Singapore value all our Team Singapore athletes tremendously. We will continue to work with SNOC and SNPC on opportunities to engage corporate entities and members of the public to celebrate our athletes’ achievements.”
“MCCY focuses on building a structured and comprehensive system to provide sustained support for Team Singapore athletes of all abilities to pursue their sporting aspirations and achieve their potential. The Major Games Awards Programme and Athletes’ Achievement Awards are private award schemes managed by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and Singapore Paralympic Council (SNPC) respectively. We congratulate all our athletes who represented Singapore at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, who have made us all proud with their commitment to excellence and their fighting spirit. MCCY and Sport Singapore value all our Team Singapore athletes tremendously. We will continue to work with SNOC and SNPC on opportunities to engage corporate entities and members of the public to celebrate our athletes’ achievements.”
“We will continue to engage the sporting community on the SMMs, and seek the community’s understanding and cooperation as we move towards becoming a COVID-19-resilient nation.”
“Safe distancing enforcement officers are appointed by the Minister for Health to enforce compliance with the prevailing safe management measures (SMMs) as stated in the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations. They are authorised under the Infectious Diseases Act to issue warnings and fines, as well as prosecute individuals and businesses that breach the control order. All newly appointed enforcement officers are trained on their roles and responsibilities, and undergo a comprehensive briefing on the current control regulations before they are deployed. Enforcement officers are regularly updated on the safe management measures (SMMs), which include the rules of engagement with premises operators and members of the public. They are also provided timely updates and reference material via their mobile devices. Officers are deployed in teams of at least two persons and a less experienced officer will be paired up with a more experienced one who can provide support and guidance. Since the start of the circuit breaker period last year, our enforcement officers have conducted more than 47,000 inspections, and provided advice to sport business operators and the public on SMMs. The vast majority of sport business operators have been compliant with the SMMs and we are thankful for their cooperation. Operators who need additional clarification are encouraged to approach Sport Singapore. We understand that the different alert phases and rules have made implementation complex for some sport business operators. To facilitate the process and help operators, Sport Singapore has held townhalls and briefing sessions to better explain the regulations, as well as to hear and better appreciate the operational concerns on the ground.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Law, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. I had also addressed the reasons for making this amendment in my opening speech. [(proc text) *The amendment reads as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 169, line 12: to leave out "copyright", and insert "rights". (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 248, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clauses 249 to 541 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the amendment* standing in the name of the Minister for Law, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. I had addressed in my opening speech the reasons for making the amendments to clause 247. [(proc text) *The amendment reads as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 168, lines 9 and 23: to leave out "copyright", and insert "rights". (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 247, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 248 –”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken. I think all of the Members who have spoken support the Bill. I would like to reiterate and underscore the point that this Bill seeks to navigate a fine balance between public interest access, having more access and ensuring that content creators are properly remunerated and their rights are protected. This Bill represents our commitment to ensure that balance between rights owners and the users. We continue to chart a path that is both fair and reasonable to both sides of the equation. We do this in the context of the technological and the market changes that are constantly occurring. Mr Speaker, with that, 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. (proc text)] [Mr Speaker in the Chair] [(proc text) Clauses 1 to 246 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Clause 247 –”
“For changes which affect a broad spectrum of stakeholders, like the changes in default ownership of commissioned works or the new right to be identified, we will reach out through various channels, infographics, social media and public talks, to make sure that information is disseminated. I would like to also take the opportunity to ask my fellow Members here to help disseminate the information as well in your respective constituencies. IPOS has put up materials on their website, explaining the changes. Members can avail themselves of online resources and bring them to the attention of members in their constituencies. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked what we do with Parmesan cheese and whiskey. Assoc Prof Lim might know that this is not within the purview of this Bill. That had been covered in the previous Geographical Indications Act, which we had passed earlier and amended last year. But I would like to assure the House that it does not stop local producers from producing. You just cannot call it a name that otherwise bears a reference to a location. When Ms He Ting Ru closed her speech, she mentioned clauses 141 and 142 on penalties, but then quickly segued into talking about the cost of foreign sports programmes being broadcast on TV. I think Ms He knows that this is also not relevant to this Bill. This is the result of exclusivity of negotiated broadcast, licences and rights, and it is not an issue that this Bill can fix. Indeed, the point here is you cannot remove copyright. You cannot take away the copyright because, quite frankly, if you do, then the content will simply not come into Singapore. So, it is quite a different debate altogether that Ms He has raised on this issue. It is not germane to this Bill and I would not say anything beyond this.”
“Singapore will be involved with an international valuation panel to develop valuation guidelines for intangible assets and IP. The guidelines will be based on internationally accepted standards that can be then widely adopted internationally and they will help rights owners commercialise and maximise the value of their IP, including through collateralisation. Finally, Sir, Members have brought up some points in relation to how these changes could be communicated to the relevant stakeholders. Mr Patrick Tay had various suggestions for freelancers and the general public. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Mr Lim Biow Chuan urged that there must be public education on the change in the default ownership rules for certain commissioned works. And I think Members were particularly taken with the point about photography and wedding photographs, in particular. It was an example that came up with more than once. We agree and we will do so. Mr Yip asked what the Government would be doing to build up a culture of acknowledging sources and identifying creators in our schools, given the new permitted use of freely available materials from the Internet for educational purposes which requires acknowledgment of the source as a condition. As I mentioned earlier, we will be reaching out to the various stakeholders to help them understand their new rights and will also be working with them to make sure that the broader public is kept informed. For example, we will work with the National Arts Council and NTUC to educate creators and performers. We will work closely with MOE to ensure that teachers and students are aware of the details of the new permitted use.”
“Let me now touch on some of the suggestions raised by Members. Ms Ng Ling Ling suggested that persons with intellectual disabilities and audio disabilities could have similar levels of permitted uses as persons with print disabilities and also that permitted uses should all be made mandatory. Mr Patrick Tay asked whether there could be a one-stop publishing house dealing with all the IP rights. Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about models that need to have some form of protection as well. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about permitted use for publicly-funded research, which I believe I responded to earlier in the context of fair use. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas suggested that we consider legislation that can determine the ownership of AI-generated works. And Ms He Ting Ru had a suggestion on mandating royalties. We will study these suggestions. These are all suggestions that are not covered in this Bill but we will study them and decide at the appropriate stage whether they can be implemented or they can be implemented with modifications. I want to tell Members of this House that our review of the copyright regime does not stop with the passing of this Bill. We will continually review, particularly given that we are dealing with an industry sector that is very fast changing and fast moving, and will take on board suggestions as they come in for our continual review. Mr Wee had a suggestion that went beyond this framework, on whether there could be a valuation and financing framework for collateralising copyright. I will just touch on this briefly. I recently spoke at the launch of the Singapore IP Strategy 2030 during this year's IP Week @ SG event, outlining the efforts on valuation of IP. I believe this is an opportune suggestion.”
“The Copyright Tribunal will continue to hear disputes over reasonableness of licence fees. That was the case and will still be the case. Clause 459 of the Bill clarifies that the new regulations will apply to any CMO who offers licences to users in Singapore. However, foreign CMOs who represent local rights owners, but offer licences to users overseas, will not be subject to the new regulations. I also mentioned the timeline for these regulations. The provisions for regulating the CMOs will only be implemented later after a further public consultation on licence conditions next year. This will give CMOs more time to make the necessary adjustments to regulation. We are mindful that the CMOs might need the extra time and we are continuously engaging with them and have done so since our CMO public consultations started a few years ago. So, I can assure Mr Thomas that the scheme will be a light-touch class licensing regulatory framework. And we similarly want to encourage new entrants in this area with innovative solutions. Regulations, as some Members have pointed out, will provide clarity to all, but at the same time, we do not intend to make it burdensome to CMOs who operate in a responsible and accountable manner. To achieve the right balance in our regulations, we have considered the experience of other countries and international precedents in WIPO's Good Practice Toolkit for CMOs. Finally, Mr Wee had some concerns that the use of the term "permitted uses" to describe exceptions may lead to confusion. The term simply means that the user is permitted to do an act under the law. Clause 183 explains that an act that is a permitted use is not a rights infringement. This will help to prevent misunderstandings about the use of that term.”
“What the current Bill does is it provides for the four factors, the Court considers all four factors. But in the appropriate case or in such cases which are particularly fact-sensitive, the Courts can still consider this. And in fact, this is what the Chief Justice said in a leading Court of Appeal decision in Global Yellow Pages. The Court of Appeal, without taking Members through the decision in detail, opined that looking at fair dealing as it currently is called, is overall highly fact-sensitive inquiry that has to have regard to all the circumstances. All the factors must be considered but the Court, of course, understands the facts, ascertains the context, looks at the parties' relative position and then, assigns the appropriate weight to each factor and makes an overall determination whether a dealing is fair or otherwise. So, this approach will continue and the Court will have regard to each case, looking at the facts. And I think if you look at the construct of the fair use exceptions, this is precisely what it is intended to do – to allow the Courts, the adjudicators to look at the specific factual matrix behind each contention for exception or for use. Next, let me touch on the CMOs which several Members spoke about. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether the Government would be regulating the amount of royalties to be paid to CMOs and what recourse users have if the amount is unreasonable. Mr Shawn Huang asked how the regulations could affect foreign CMOs. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas suggested that CMOs may need more time to adapt to the regulations and it should not be too onerous as to be prohibitive to new entrants. As I mentioned briefly earlier, our regulations proposed in this Bill do not control the prices which CMOs charge.”
“Copying it, whether a part of it or the entirety of the materials is allowed if done for the permitted purposes and the permitted use does not prevent any parts that are copied from being combined along with other materials. On fair use, Mr Don Wee, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms He Ting Ru had some questions on the changes that we have made to fair use. Let me just explain the changes and then, take the Members of the House through how this is contemplated to work with the Courts. The question that has been asked is whether fair use has been reworked into an open-ended exception that requires the Courts to make a determination on a case-by-case basis and whether, with the fifth factor removed, the point that Mr Wee specifically bought up, we are now providing less guidance to the Courts. Let me assure both Mr Wee and Ms He that this provision has always been an open-ended one, requiring a case-by-case determination by the Courts, even on the existing regime in the present Copyright Act. I would also add that despite dropping the fifth factor, the Courts can still consider that factor when relevant. We dropped the fifth factor because there was market feedback by stakeholders that it lent itself into confusion. Because of the language and because of the way in which it was framed, users had assumed, in many cases, wrongly, that they first had to procure a licence before they could get within the rubric of the fifth factor. Members would also know that clause 191 requires the Court to consider "all relevant matters" in deciding whether a work or a performance is fairly used. So, the removal of the fifth factor simply means that the Court only needs to consider that factor when it is of the view that that factor is relevant. So, it does not make it irrelevant.”
“In short, because computational data analysis does not itself make use of the expressive nature of the works, the rights owners' reputational and commercial interests are not adversely affected. To Mr Louis Ng's question, many permitted uses can be modified or excluded via reasonable contract terms. However, some permitted uses are mandatory for public policy reasons because the benefit of that particular permitted use could be drastically reduced or even non-existent if we allow contracts to modify its application. So, we protect certain categories which are necessary for public policy reasons, and computational data analysis is one such category. The benefit of data analysis improves as the set of underlying data used is as complete as possible. Having specific databases locked out of the analysis because of contractual restrictions would make the results less useful, or worse, create bias or inaccuracies. Therefore, it is important not to allow private contractual provisions to override this permitted use. It supports the development of useful applications of data analysis, which is indispensable to the current digital economy. In addition, this permitted use only covers materials to which a user must have had lawful access, such as by paying the subscription fee for the database. So, where the creators or publishers of the materials charge fees in order for users to access such works, that revenue would not be affected. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the new permitted use that allows for dissemination of materials by the Government would also allow such content to be incorporated or compiled into an existing publication. The short answer is yes.”
“Around the world, copyright permitted uses for educational purposes only cover non-profit schools in general. Even if for-profit schools, charitable organisations or IPCs cannot avail themselves of this permitted use, there could be other permitted uses or exceptions which might apply, like fair use. I believe Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned what happens in a situation where you want to use the material for non-educational but knowledge-based think tanks, if I heard him correctly. In this situation, the fair use does not prescribe restrictions to the type of organisations which might avail themselves of the fair use. On computational data analysis, several Members asked some questions. Mr Don Wee asked about the safeguards for rights owners, particularly in light of the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Mr Shawn Huang asked whether the permitted use would treat rights owners whose work is instrumental to the outcome of the computational data analysis differently, such as requiring attribution or protecting their commercial interests. And Mr Louis Ng asked why it cannot be restricted by contract. Let me first highlight to Mr Don Wee that the definition of computational data analysis is broad enough to include AI and machine learning. I think I mentioned that in my initial speech. The conditions of permitted uses were developed with that in mind. To answer Mr Shawn Huang, let me explain the principle behind permitted use. Computational data analysis treats the works as data points and does not make use of the expressive nature of the works, which is what copyright fundamentally seeks to protect.”
“Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether there would be a loophole that consumers can buy from other countries set-top boxes that stream unauthorised sources of content. The new provisions impose liability on those who deal commercially with such boxes, like sellers, but not the buyers of such boxes. This was done having regard to striking a right balance. Prevalence of such devices and services is an issue around the world. Different countries are at different stages of dealing with this issue. Eventually, it is likely that these devices and services will also be banned or legislated against in other countries too. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked whether the permitted use in relation to Internet materials for educational purposes for non-profit schools could be used by for-profit schools, charitable organisations or Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs), and if not, whether it could be extended to them. Again, the point I made at the outset is, we strike a balance. The more inroads you create in terms of exceptions or fair use, the less likely it is that creators and content owners will be appropriately remunerated for their content. So, here is a balance and we believe that clause 83, which defines educational institutions that can benefit from this permitted use, strikes the right balance, requiring them to be non-profit, generally covering full-time education and also includes training for adults for their profession. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about charitable organisations and IPCs. They can avail themselves of this permitted use if they fall within the criteria of clause 83. As I mentioned, this is a balanced position. Copyright owners' interests also need to be considered when we legislate.”
“He might know that we are bound by the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) and the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), which have a minimum duration of protection. That is what we have provided for in this Bill. This is higher than what other countries are bound to and this stronger protection of IP is balanced in this case by the various permitted uses in the Act, which I had discussed earlier and which Members had spoken about. Second, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about new provisions on sound recordings and whether they are EUSFTA obligations. They only add new rights related to public performance and broadcasting of sound recordings. It should be noted that we already protect sound recording rights today, for example, to prevent copying. To our knowledge, based on the extensive feedback and the industry consultation, there is no evidence that this protection, which also exists in other countries, would inhibit creativity in new areas. Third, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about the change of default ownership and I think he spoke about the employer-employee relationship. This is based on international industry and legislative norms, including what the UK does for their framework. This was also discussed with stakeholders during our consultations and public consultations. The point really is, the Bill sets up a default position from which parties can negotiate. And I think that is a point Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also raised. The point is that the position in law, as set out in this Bill, is the starting point. Parties then negotiate away from that position. But there has to be a starting position, as a default.”
“Likewise, other countries have similar copyright regimes which allow rights owners in Singapore to take action against acts of infringement that might occur in their countries. Several Members had questions on the details of the changes and I will now turn to a few of them. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether, instead of written agreements, oral agreements can be used to change the default position. Mr Don Wee asked how past contracts are treated with the change in the default ownership for commissioning situations. Sir, oral agreements can and oftentimes will present evidential difficulties when there is a dispute. The intention here is not to add on a further overlay of disputes. Consumers typically are even more vulnerable between the two parties if oral agreements are allowed. It is often going to be one man's word against another. But having said that, we will consider Mr Lim Biow Chuan's suggestion, which is a good one, for a template for a written agreement of copyright ownership. Clause 135 of the Bill clarifies that contracts entered into prior to the effective date of this Bill will not be affected by the changes I spoke about. This ensures that the existing contractual arrangements which have already been entered into will not be affected by this Bill. Mr Don Wee had a question on the challenge for users to identify the creator or performer. I had mentioned it earlier but let me just reiterate. There will be appropriate exceptions where identification would not be needed. For example, when the identity of the creator or performer is not reasonably ascertainable. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about the duration for protection and whether these are based on our international obligations.”
“Members might recall that in 2019, I mentioned during the Second Reading of the Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Bill that MinLaw and the Supreme Court were looking into the introduction of a specialised IP litigation "track" in the High Court with simplified processes and cost-saving features. That simplified process track is about to be introduced and more details will be announced in the coming months. Finally, we appreciate the importance of efficient and cost-effective alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as – as Mr Yip Hon Weng has suggested – mediation. I believe the fees mentioned by Mr Yip Hon Weng are for mediation of copyright disputes in Singapore under the auspices of WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Centre, or WIPO AMC. These fees are in fact the result of IPOS' existing collaboration with WIPO AMC to reduce mediation costs for copyright disputes and are already highly subsidised. That said, we are already exploring with other Government agencies on how to make mediation even more accessible. I am happy to hear that Mr Yip Hon Weng subscribes to this as well and we would be happy to take on board his suggestions. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Don Wee asked how creators and performers can enforce against people outside Singapore. I think Ms He Ting Ru also raised the same point. A fundamental point is that copyright laws are territorial. They protect copyright within the territory, that is, Singapore. Our copyright regime allows rights owners to enforce against acts of infringement that occur in Singapore, regardless of whether they are by a local or a foreigner. But the key point is that these are infringements that take place within our jurisdiction.”
“On enforcement, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Shawn Huang highlighted that creators and performers may lack the financial resources to take enforcement action against infringers. Mr Louis Ng, in particular, asked whether there could be a special court process created or whether the Copyright Tribunal could be a cost-effective means of enforcement. Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested that there could cheaper alternatives such as mediation for freelance creatives. We have received much of this feedback and discussed it a lot with stakeholders during public consultations. A solution would have to stretch beyond the current legislative amendments. We will ensure that there are cost-effective enforcement options available and that creatives who are individuals or small business owners will be made aware of them. First, IPOS runs the IP Legal Clinics. Its aim is to provide creators and performers a quick and easy way to assess their situation, to decide if they own the copyright, what is the level of infringement, what the next steps might be. Typically, there is a 45-minute session with an IP specialist lawyer. Advice can be sought on any IP infringement issue, including enforcement options. The costs are fully reimbursable by IPOS. In general, many clear situations can be resolved by a simple letter asserting rights, by telling the alleged infringer of the rights and asserting them, and asking that the user then stop their actions, pay the licence fee or, in the appropriate cases, give credit for the application. Second, we are continuing to make Court processes more accessible to creators and performers.”
“The Bill would not be able to take into account the relative considerations in every commercial negotiation. For example, if we legislate that creators will always have ownership, regardless and do not allow contracts to change this position, this might not cater for situations where the creator wants to assign or sell his or her own copyright for good commercial reasons. Creators should instead consider coming together, forming industry associations to develop industry best practices to represent them. A good example is NTUC's Freelancers and Self-Employed Unit. They advocate for best practices. It seeded an industry association, the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association, or VICPA; worked with Law Society Pro Bono Services to develop and publish a handbook, "Advocate for the Arts: A Legal Handbook for the Creative Industries". The UK Society of Authors and the Australian Society of Authors similarly support their members in the same fashion. We will continue to work with Government agencies overseeing the development of the various industry sectors to encourage and to support the development of industry associations and industry best practices. Encouraging organisations who commission works to act more reasonably is another factor that would help the current situation. Mr Patrick Tay had a couple of good suggestions on how the public sector can lead by example and how service buyers can be educated on basic contract principles. We will continue with our education efforts within the public sector on these procurement issues and also work with Government agencies to explore how we can educate other service buyers.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the various Members who have spoken for their support of the Bill. Their speeches illustrate some of the competing issues that we face when designing this Bill. Having more exceptions and making inroads to free use or widening fair use all mean less recognition for creators, less remuneration that they receive for their works. Conversely, too tight a framework on copyright with less exceptions, tighter fair use, might mean that public interests and access might then not be fulfilled. So, in designing this Bill, we have had to tread a balanced path, look at all the competing interests and balance it one against the other and find a path that at once, allows public interests in content but at the same time, creates an environment where creators can be recognised and attributed for their works. Sir, Members have raised various suggestions and questions on the Bill. Broadly, in four categories as follows: one, some of the difficulties that rights owners might face; second, clarifications on some of the changes; third, they have raised several suggestions for further changes to be considered; and finally, the communication of these changes to the public. I will address Members' queries in these four baskets. Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Patrick Tay highlighted that the change in the default rules of ownership helps to put creators in a better negotiating position. But creators who are freelancers or small business owners might still face the imbalance of negotiating power that can negate the benefit of the change. Sir, this Bill provides for a change the legal position for default ownership, in favour of creators. But we cannot, however, legislate for negotiating power.”
“For example, clause 204, which permits the use of freely accessible Internet materials for educational purposes, contains illustrations that will help teachers understand the scope of such permitted use. Because copyright affects everyone, whether as a rights owner or user, these changes will make the Bill easier for all to understand. Sir, we intend to implement the majority of the Bill, if passed, in November this year. The provisions on the licensing of CMOs, which Members will find in Division 2 of Part 9 and clause 507(4)(c) will be implemented later, after we further consult next year on the licence conditions for CMOs, which will be embodied in the subsidiary legislation. Mr Speaker, let me now conclude. At slightly over 320 pages, the Bill is a significant undertaking. The responses we have received in our various public consultations, including the most recent one for the Bill itself, have been generally supportive. Respondents tell us that the Bill meets its goal of responding to the challenges and opportunities of the current digital environment and also being easier to understand. Importantly, this Bill will play its part in helping Singapore maintain our top-class intellectual property regime. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 3.09 pm”
“There are also safeguards to ensure the proper exercise of such powers, including the right of a CMO to appeal to the Minister in cases involving more severe penalties, such as where a CMO is ordered to cease its business. Let me now touch on the rationalisation of the criminal offences in this Bill. This Bill will also rationalise and update the existing criminal offences relating to works and protected performances. Part 8 of the Bill provides for these offences. Offences are now categorised into those with commercial element, which share the same higher penalty and those without a commercial element, which attracts a lower range of penalties. The penalties reflect the severity of the different types of criminal activities and will more effectively deter future acts of infringement. Finally, Sir, I want to speak briefly on the changes we have made to the structure of and the language used in the Bill. We had made three key changes in this respect. First, the structure has been redesigned, overhauled, to improve the organisation of the legislation. Second, we have taken the opportunity to ensure that the Bill is written in plain English, for ease of reading and understanding. For existing provisions that have been rewritten in plain English, section 9B of the Interpretation Act helps to clarify that such changes in style do not affect the meaning just because different forms of words have been used to express the same idea. Third, we have included illustrations showing how certain provisions should be applied in common situations to help rights owners and users understand their rights and obligations more easily.”
“Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 9 create a new class licensing scheme that sets minimum standards for how Collective Management Organisations, or CMOs, operate. CMOs are private organisations that represent groups of rights owners to grant licences to users. This is an efficient way for users to get licences from a large group of rights owners. For example, users often get licences from CMOs to play songs in public. The alternative would be for users to have to seek permission directly from the composer and the lyricist of each song. Historically, CMOs have not been regulated. Over the years, we have had feedback from both rights owners and users regarding the behaviour of certain CMOs who, for example, refuse to give information on their repertoire or how they distribute royalties among their members. In response, an arrangement was reached in 2012 for CMOs to self-regulate through a voluntary code of conduct. However, since then, for a variety of different reasons, the CMOs have ceased to apply this code of conduct. Our public consultation in 2017 garnered feedback that the earlier concerns still remain relevant. Thus, the need for some oversight of CMOs. In this Bill, the new CMO regulatory framework will be administered by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) and will address issues of transparency, governance, accountability and efficiency. It will not control the prices that the CMOs charge. In this regard, the Copyright Tribunals will continue to hear any disputes over questions surrounding the reasonableness of licence fees. IPOS, however, will be vested with powers to set licence conditions, investigate contraventions of licence conditions and also impose penalties for non-compliance.”
“This also continues to be in line with Singapore's international obligations under the Marrakesh Treaty. Another change, Sir, is found in clause 244 of the Bill, which allows the use of works and recordings of protected performances for computational data analysis. To give Members an example, this permitted use can be relied on when training an Artificial Intelligence programme or using computers to analyse large databases of materials, without needing to seek permission from each rights owner. It will apply in both commercial and non-commercial contexts. However, the user must have lawfully accessed the relevant materials, for example, he or she should not have accessed the materials by circumventing a paywall. This supports our Smart Nation initiatives, our push towards data-driven innovation and Singapore's efforts to grow our Artificial Intelligence and technology sectors. At this juncture, Sir, let me highlight that I would also be moving two amendments to the Bill at its Committee stage, to correct a drafting omission in clauses 247 and 248. These clauses allow the use of sound recordings and recordings of performances under specified circumstances, subject to payment of equitable remuneration to the copyright owner. The amendments, Sir, replace the term "copyright owner" with the term, "rights owner" in both clauses. The latter is a broader term and also includes persons who are entitled to bring an action for infringing uses of a performance. As the scope of the exception covers performances, the amendments ensure that there is a corresponding obligation to pay the rights owner of the performance. Sir, the third category of changes strengthens the overall copyright ecosystem and I will touch on this now.”
“If the material has been communicated to the public, they must take reasonable steps to prevent further access to the material. Any further use of that material would not be allowed under this permitted use. The limitation of this permitted use of free Internet materials allows our teachers and students to source from many different up-to-date sources without adversely affecting the incomes of the educational publishers who can continue to charge for their offerings. Another set of beneficiaries are the print-disabled, for example, the visually impaired, or those who cannot manipulate physical hardcopy books. In 2014, we passed certain provisions relating to the Marrakesh Treaty, a treaty concluded under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO, which seeks to facilitate access to copyright works for persons with print disabilities. We have since received feedback from the users of these provisions. In particular, the requirement to pay fees to rights owners when organisations help people with print disabilities convert works and protected performances into accessible formats was seen as making the conversion process even more expensive and time-consuming. It also effectively charged persons with print disabilities twice, since they would have already purchased a copy of the work or the recording of the performance for the organisation to make the conversion. Consequently, Division 4 of Part 5 of the Bill, modifies the permitted uses relating to persons with print disabilities to remove the obligation to pay fees to the rights owner when conversions are made and distributed. The change supports the needs of the print-disabled community and Singapore's commitment to building a more inclusive society.”
“In tandem with the introduction of these specific remedies, we continue to encourage content owners to provide a broad selection of affordable, high-quality content to consumers to attract them onto such platforms with legitimate content. We also want to urge consumers to respect intellectual property (IP) and consume legal offerings so that we can incentivise creators to produce more quality content. The second category of changes will increase the scope of permitted use of works and protected performances to benefit society at large and I will turn to this now. First, let me highlight the change which helps in the use of works and recordings of protected performances for education. The use of Internet materials for educational activities has increased in importance over the years and now, even more so, particularly in the context of the pandemic, with home-based learning and other online activities. Clause 204 of the Bill creates a new permitted use of Internet materials for educational activities, including home-based teaching and learning conducted by non-profit educational institutions. It is limited to Internet materials that are generally accessible to the public for free. For example, a teacher can include news articles or blog posts that are freely accessible on the Internet in lesson plans or homework assignments. The student, in turn, can use these materials for their projects or their assignments in school. One condition is that the teacher or student must not knowingly use Internet materials which infringe copyright. If they unknowingly do so and subsequently receive a notification from the rights owner, then, they must stop using the material.”
“Thus, while the predominant issue today is with devices which facilitate access to films and cable programmes, the new provisions will also be broad enough to cover other types of content like books and songs and other methods such as offering of services to install apps on existing hardware. The change targets people who commercially profit off hardware, software and services which have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use and other than to facilitate access to copyright works communicated to the public without the authority of the copyright owners. Acts of a commercial nature, such as commercial dealings by way of sale, offering for sale, distribution for the purposes of trade, will fall within the scope of the new provisions. The new provisions are technologically neutral: it applies equally to acts in a brick-and-mortar setting as they do to acts on the online platform. For example, a liability is imposed on a retailer, whether in a physical shop or online, who knowingly sells a set-top box or other devices containing pre-loaded applications that provide access to streaming sites housing pirated content. The new provisions do not impose liability on consumers and users of the hardware devices, software applications or services. These new provisions provide copyright owners with specific remedies. They should utilise these provisions when enforcing their rights against commercial dealings in these devices, apps or services instead of other liability provisions in the Bill that copyright owners may have previously sought to rely on in the past, in the absence of these specific remedies.”
“Today, creators of commissioned works like illustrations or text for corporate collaterals have default ownership of their works. However, creators of other commissioned works, in particular, photographs, portraits, engravings, sound recordings and films, do not have default ownership. In those cases, it is the commissioning party that owns the copyright by default. This change therefore aligns the default position so that there will be no difference amongst the different types of commissioned works. For example, a photographer hired to take photos at an event would by default own the copyright to those photos he or she took. While parties can continue to use contractual arrangements to adjust copyright ownership, this puts our creators in a better position before negotiations with the commissioning party commences. Next, for copyright owners of audio-visual content like films and cable programmes, clauses 150 and 445(b) of the Bill impose civil and criminal liability on commercial dealers in hardware devices, software applications and services that facilitate access to unauthorised content. Sir, during our public consultations, content owners had highlighted that devices which facilitate access to unauthorised versions of films and cable programmes were becoming more pervasive. They also had difficulty in utilising the existing provisions in the Copyright Act to enforce against the sellers of such devices. We reviewed the situation and concluded that new liability provisions tailor-made for these situations and, taking into account future use cases, would be useful and would also provide clarity for the industry.”
“The Bill also provides for exceptions where identification is not needed, including if the identity of the author or performer is not reasonably ascertainable by the user, in computer programs or when the work is an artistic work situated in a public place. Parties can continue to use contractual arrangements to manage their obligations to identify the author or performer. So, where the author or performer waives his or her rights in writing, then he or she does not need to be referred to or identified. The attribution rights as a creator are personal to the author or performer and cannot be assigned to a third party. As this new right is separate from the economic rights relating to copyright, users must still identify the author or performer even if they have a licence to do the relevant acts comprised in copyright, such as a licence to publish the work. So, in cases where the author or performer and the rights owner are not the same person, it will be necessary to obtain permission from both parties. This right to be identified is only enforceable by civil means via injunctions and damages. Clause 385(2) provides that the Court must consider all relevant matters in deciding on the appropriate remedy, including the defendant's awareness of the author or performer's right to be identified or anything done by the defendant to mitigate the effects of the infringement. Sir, this new right will help authors and performers gain recognition and build their reputation, particularly in the current online environment where works or performances may be very easily misattributed or, in some cases, not attributed at all. Another change, Sir, can be found in clause 133 of the Bill, which provides that creators will generally be the default copyright owners, subject to contract.”
“Members can also access these materials through the SG PARL MP mobile app. Members will see that this annexure cross-references each provision in the Bill to its corresponding provision in the current Copyright Act. As you can see, the organisational changes are quite extensive. Members may also notice that quite a few provisions in the Bill in the annexure that you now have before you do not have a corresponding provision in the current Act. These are the new provisions. Sir, I shall highlight some of these new changes, which fall into three broad buckets: first, changes that benefit creators and rights owners; second, changes that benefit users and society generally; and third, broader changes that strengthen the entire copyright ecosystem. The first category of changes will benefit creators and rights owners to reward them for their creations and also enable them to create new works. Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 7 of the Bill create a new right for authors and performers to be identified in order to accord them due recognition for their creative works. Anyone who uses authorial works or protected performances in public must identify the author or performer. The specific circumstances in which identification must be given depends on the work or performance in question. For example, a person must identify the author of an artistic work like a photograph whenever the person publishes it, such as in a book or perhaps in corporate materials, or communicates a visual image of it, such as sharing it online or on a social media platform.”