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 23 of 45.
“We seek to encourage greater private support through initiatives like the Cultural Matching Fund under which the Government matches private donations dollar-for-dollar. Government funding for the arts and culture has steadily and consistently increased over the years. Since 2013, a total of $3.16 billion has been provided to the sector. Annually, this amounts to around $450 million per year, compared to $300 million per year before 20131. NAC receives about a third of this amount, which, in turn, is passed on to the arts community through grants and commissions2. The annual allocations to different arts and culture organisations and practitioners – whether medium-sized independent outfits, small collectives or individual artists – vary, based on grant applications received. Allocation by art form also varies, but generally corresponds to the relative proportions which they occupy in the arts eco-system, which, in 2019, had around 60% of organisations in the performing arts, 20% in the visual arts and 15% in the literary arts3. Other Government funding goes to the National Heritage Board and our national cultural institutions, such as the Esplanade and National Gallery Singapore. Like NAC, these organisations channel their budgets to sustain and grow a vibrant culture sector, including by commissioning smaller arts groups and self-employed practitioners for their exhibitions and festivals. They make sustained efforts in profiling the best of our arts and culture to local and international audiences. Our cultural institutions are also instrumental in building new capabilities for the future, providing resources and spaces for innovation and experimentation through initiatives like the National Gallery Singapore’s Y-Lab, an incubator for Art x Tech product innovation.”
“We take a holistic approach to the development of our arts and culture landscape to respond to the diverse needs of different players in the eco-system. Funding for the arts and culture is distributed across a variety of purposes. These include grants to arts groups and practitioners for organisational development, art making and presentation, digitalisation and audience engagement; direct commissioning and programming of works; allocation of spaces and rental subsidies; maintaining and upgrading of arts infrastructure; profiling of Singapore’s arts and artists to international audiences and undertaking of research that is shared with the arts community. Our schemes also help and incentivise our arts and culture practitioners to develop their skills and capabilities so as to sustain their livelihoods and maximise opportunities. This is done through schemes like NAC’s Capability Development Grant; the Arts Resource Hub to support self-employed practitioners; as well as MCCY and NAC’s work with MOE on the new arts University that will provide industry-relevant training across creative disciplines, to support employment opportunities in the arts economy. The Arts and Culture Resilience Package (ACRP) has been a key effort to safeguard livelihoods, retain capabilities and talent and help position the sector for the post-COVID-19 recovery. The ACRP was recently enhanced with an additional $20 million, bringing the total dedicated COVID-19 support for our arts and cultural community to $75 million, beyond other national support measures during the pandemic. We believe that support for the arts and culture must be a partnership with shared responsibility among the public, private and people sectors.”
“NAC will continue to use the most appropriate modality for its future engagements, including REACH, where suitable.”
“NAC conducts regular engagements with the arts community through various platforms. It has made public the key issues and outcomes from such consultations on its website. However, not all consultations or discussions on art management issues are handled in the same way. The outcome of such consultations, and the extent to which they are published in public fora are addressed in a number of ways, depending on the specific issue at hand. Let me cite some recent examples. NAC hosted two Emerging Stronger Conversations in December 2020 to hear the arts community’s feedback arising from COVID-19, with reports and summaries published on NAC’s website and social media channels. Prior to this, NAC engaged self-employed workers and freelancers in the arts for over a year, with reports also published on its website. These engagements helped inform the establishment of the Arts Resource Hub in 2019. Similarly, NAC consulted over 700 members of the arts community on Our SG Arts Plan and published the draft report on its website for public comments and feedback, before the Plan was launched in 2018. In the coming months, NAC will engage the arts community on the new SEP Grant and Business Transformation Grant under the enhanced Arts and Culture Resilience Package to incorporate their suggestions and design these grants in a way that will best meet their needs. NAC will also begin consultations with the arts community and other stakeholders on the next edition of the SG Arts Plan. NAC also uses a variety of platforms for its engagements, including small group dialogues and one-to-one consultation with NAC’s dedicated account managers for major arts companies, and has also received feedback from the arts community via the REACH platform.”
“In terms of the LBC between the landlord and tenant, I think both Mr Chua and Mr Perera raised this, yes, it is collectible from the parties who have a material interest and that includes, in the context of a landlord and tenant, the tenant itself. The tenant may have recourse to the landlord for any portion that the landlord ought to bear, but the provisions here set out the mechanism by which the state is able to levy the LBC as against any persons with an interest in the land. And as Members would know, that includes the tenant. To Mr Chua's point, if there is a dispute as to the valuation or disputes as to the way in which the Table of Rates is used, that dispute is taken to the Minister whose decision would be final. On Mr Perera's question, as to whether there can be a deferment if one cannot pay the LBC. Well, in the context of most cases, LBC is levied in a situation where there is an enhancement in the value of land. So, typically, a landowner or developer who obviously would have done his sums would come, make a proposal want to develop a piece of land, and obviously the intention behind that development is enhancement of land value. Such a situation would not often arise, but should it arise, that is something that can be taken into account, as a matter of discretion. And you look at the entire context of the situation in considering the appropriate deferment, if any. As to timing of the payment raised by Mr Perera, both the LBC and the DP are generally payable after PP, but before the Written Permission. Sir, I think I have covered as many of the points which I think are salient. With that Sir, I beg to move.”
“So, the Court decision per se on itself, it would not be a chargeable consent, but if subsequently, in the context of the decision taken by the Court to vary or lift or otherwise construe a restriction in a positive manner, that will be taken into account as an enhancement in the land value. And I hope that clarifies Mr Murali's point. I should clarify to this House that the LBC is not a tax to cream-off any transaction that leads to an appreciation land value. In other words, if you develop ways not related to the land, the LBC is not designed to cream-off those appreciations. The liability to pay LBC arises only when the state grants a chargeable consent by allowing a landowner to develop the land further or varying a restrictive covenant in the state title, so that you can do something, which you previously could not do under the title. In keeping with the principle in clause 5, that those who benefit financially when permission to develop the land is given should share some of that gain with the community. And I think that is also a point raised by almost all the Members who spoke on this point. Mr Perera raised several specific questions and I will just address them here very quickly. On the question of an IPC, I think Mr Perera's point is some might not be registered as a charity. So, it might be a society with an IPC status. The regulations will consider this and will take this into account, even if you are not registered as a charity but have IPC status. Stamp duty is not leviable on the LBC, as the LBC is a tax, as Mr Perera had pointed out. In relation to the renewal of leases, leasehold interest for state leases, a lease renewal premium is paid, not the LBC.”
“Landowners who wish to purchase remnant state land will continue to have to pay a land premium as consideration to SLA for the remnant land parcel, and the LBC applicable for any chargeable consent thereafter granted on their private land parcel as a result of the amalgamation. So, I think to answer Mr Murali's point, if you decide to put together the parcels and you need a chargeable consent to be given in respect of say, a restrictive covenant to be lifted, then an LBC will be levied. Mr Murali also asked for the Government's position on the applicability of the LBC in relation to Court decisions, citing examples such as the lifting of easements or restrictions, dominant/servient, tenement, for example, which may result in land value. A Court's decision to vary an easement or restriction would not in itself constitute a chargeable consent. So, in itself, it is not a chargeable consent, under the LBC Act. So, if you have a piece of land and you are subject to a Court decision – where the Court rules one way or another on the construction of the easement, for example, that itself will not amount to a chargeable consent. What the Court does is make a pronouncement as to the proper construction of the easement already existing as to what it should entail. But having said that, it can certainly affect the value of the land and I think that is Mr Murali's point. And this will certainly be taken on board in a valuation, should chargeable consent by the state be granted subsequently with respect to this piece of land with the Court's decision taken into account.”
“Yes, it will be reviewed to ensure that it continues to be updated and the circumstances under which the assessment of LBC by valuation is required. That is similar to what is done for the DC Table of Rates today. So, as I said, the framework does not differ. To Mr Perera's question, as to whether there will be a wholly new system, the answer, I think, is quite clear from what I said at the outset, and also my last statement that no, it would not be a wholly new system. It will be similar to the existing framework. In fact, it is a consolidation of the existing framework, which is why we felt that no public consultation was necessary in this case. Valuations are required in specific circumstances, where the Table of Rates might not be applicable in circumstances, which I outlined earlier, such as, for unique developments, like for example, golf courses, theme parks, where there might not be a suitable or comparable use group or sufficiently rich source of data available. Taxable persons might also opt to use LBC by valuation in lieu of the Table of Rates. Mr Perera might wish to know that this system of having a valuer as an option, apart from the Chief Valuer, currently is already available. And there has not been any specific difficulty associated with that. Mr Murali asked if the DP system will continue outside the lifting of restrictive covenants. And I think, specifically Mr Murali cited the example of remnant land parcels, odd pieces of land, which could be put together and developed upon. Mr Murali's point is that these odd pieces by themselves are not capable of independent development, but with amalgamation, they may have the potential to bring about enhancement.”
“This is part of the Government's differentiated financing strategy for different types of expenditure. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Minister's power to grant general exemptions will be exercised in line with the purposes of the Act; Mr Perera, and I think Mr Chua also did. The short answer is yes; that is set out in section 5. Mr Ng may also wish to note that sections 12 and 13 require that every order made to grant an exemption or provide for concessionary relief must be presented in Parliament as soon as possible after publication in the Gazette. Members of this House will be directly informed of the making of these exemptions when these are made. I think Mr Chua also made a point about this. Mr Ng asked how the Government will recover the benefits accrued by developers from unlawful development of land. The purpose of the LBC Bill is to impose a tax on the increase in the value of land arising from a chargeable consent. It does not provide for a penalty tax to be collected for unlawful developments where no such consent is granted. So, if you have something that is done in breach of the restrictive covenants, for example, then, subsequently when the permission is granted, not only will LBC be collected, there will also be a penalty amount levied on top of that; up to 30%, as I mentioned at the outset. For unlawful developments involving a breach of planning control, URA under the Planning Act today may issue an enforcement notice. The notice may require the removal of any unlawful structures and reinstatement of the land to its former site. Mr Don Wee asked whether SLA will continue to review the Table of Rates every six months with IRAS. Mr Perera also touched upon this. Mr Chua as well raised this point.”
“Mr Wee asked about the use of the LBC collections – I think Mr Chua did as well and so did Mr Ng – and whether LBC collections will reduce the amount of future borrowing needed for long-term national infrastructure projects. Let me first clarify that the LBC is a consolidation of three existing revenue streams. They do not seek to enhance these. As I mentioned at the outset, the existing framework is preserved, it is just put under one collection agency, and the LBC will be the name used for all three converted into LBC. The consolidation is therefore not expected to result in a marked increase in the amount of revenue. Indeed, the revenue to be collected will, of course, depend on the extent to which developers and landowners make an application for enhancement or intensification which triggers the use of LBC. Clause 57 in the Bill requires all LBC collections to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The LBC would thus be a part of the public monies available for this House for appropriate expenditures that benefit Singaporeans as a whole. It would not be earmarked specifically for one purpose or one project, but it will be available generally, in the fund to benefit Singaporeans as a whole. And, these, Mr Speaker, would include the funding of infrastructure, services and public programmes, including projects that benefit the local community, as well as broader national ones, such as the Singapore Green Plan. For major infrastructure spend that is critical to Singapore's development, we have just talked about the SINGA Bill. This would smoothen hefty costs, which could run into tens of billions of dollars. By doing so, we will no longer need to pay for the costs upfront from our operating revenues.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the various Members for speaking and expressing support for the Bill. I will go straight into the queries that have been raised and try and address as many of them as I can. Mr Louis Ng, and I think Mr Louis Chua and Mr Leon Perera, asked about the concessionary relief. Mr Ng, in particular, asked what the planning objectives are that we intend to achieve by the grant of relief in section 13. The provisions in section 13 enable the continuation of existing concessionary reliefs from Development Charge (DC), currently provided for in the Planning Act. It will also make provision for future concessionary reliefs for developments that promote sustainable development of land and which balances the interest of current and future generations of Singaporeans. An example of the continued provision for concessionary relief for change of use proposals within conserved buildings to incentivise the restoration of conserved buildings – I think a point that Mr Perera also touched on – and the adaptive reuse of conserved buildings. This is necessary to promote more optimal use of land, whilst at the same time, maintaining Singapore's cultural heritage. Mr Wee also asked for examples of concessionary relief to encourage construction productivity. Any future relief schemes will be gazetted according to purposes and objectives set out in section 13 of the Bill. Appropriate measures will be considered to ensure that these objectives, as we have set out in this Bill for the new relief schemes will be achieved. MND will share more about this when they are ready.”
“MCCY would like to express our appreciation to the event partners, as well as the Association of Tennis Professionals officials and players, whose understanding and cooperation with our health protocols contributed to the event’s success. Singaporeans can expect to see more of such events return to Singapore in the near future, where MCCY will continue to work closely with the health authorities to put in place appropriate SMMs to keep Singapore safe, as society progressively transitions to a new normal.”
“Singapore hosted the Singapore Tennis Open at the Singapore Sports Hub over 20-28 February 2021. The event saw over 50 professional players from more than 15 countries, including Singapore, vying for the Singles and Doubles titles, supported by nearly 300 staff and volunteers. We also welcomed 500 local spectators for the event’s weekend finale. The safe and successful organisation of the event was the result of close coordination between ministries and key event partners such as the Sports Hub and the Singapore Tennis Association, that worked closely to ensure a well-planned, well-executed event, with the appropriate safe management measures (SMMs) in place. Beyond the mandatory pre-departure and on-arrival COVID tests, personnel arriving from overseas were required to undergo daily Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing and follow a controlled itinerary that kept them “bubbled” apart from the local community to minimise the risks of COVID transmission. Sport Singapore (SportSG) also ensured the safety of the local workforce supporting the event, including tournament staff, officials and volunteers, who were required to don personal protective equipment such as gowns, face-shields and gloves. As a precaution, these personnel were required to undergo daily Antigen Rapid Tests (ART). Spectators attending the matches were also required to undergo antigen testing before they were allowed into the tournament arena. Such measures, alongside our mask-on policy, safe distancing protocols, and adoption of Trace Together, contributed to ensuring a safe event experience for everyone. The successful conclusion of the Singapore Tennis Open event marks a significant step toward the resumption of international sporting events in Singapore.”
“On Mr Leong's first question, the original post by MCCY was before Mr Mendoza surfaced his claims. As I explained earlier, the first video or the first series of videos were of school children in a respectful setting, using the song albeit without permission. And it was in that context that the first message that Mr Leong refers to was put up. Subsequently, when Mr Mendoza asserted his claim, as I explained in my answer earlier, Mr Mendoza's assertion was a direct challenge to our own ownership and proprietary interest in the song, then things took a different turn and we pressed Mr Mendoza to withdraw his claims, which brings me to my second point. As I explained earlier, Mr Mendoza did in fact admit that he has no ownership interest; he has got no evidence to substantiate his position that he lays any claim to the song. He withdraws his position he previously took on "We Can Achieve". So, to Mr Leong's point about assertion of interest in our copyright, assertion of our position and our ownership of such copyright, that was what we did precisely with Mr Mendoza. Mr Leong should not also confuse asserting our rights with necessarily taking legal action, legal proceedings. They are not necessarily the same thing. And in this case, it was far more efficient, quicker and a lot more effective for Mr Mendoza to be persuaded that his own position was untenable, for his claims to be withdrawn by himself and not in any way removing the Singapore Government's claim and, in fact, for all Singaporeans' interest in the songs to be preserved. That, I believe in this context, was a far more efficient outcome that was achieved in a matter of several days, as opposed to being caught up in protracted legal action, which could potentially take a fairly long period of time.”
“The answer to Mr Giam's second question is yes, permission needs to be sought and the legal ambit and regulations that govern this will be set out in the Copyright Act, as with any other ownership of copyright. As for Mr Giam's first question, most of the songs which were written by third parties, the copyright is with the Government. There are some other arrangements where the copyright in the composer and lyricist might be different. But in all situations, where it is either owned by the Government or managed by the Government, to that extent, permission would be sought before any third party uses or performs these songs on any other platform.”
“Honouring and respecting our symbols, however, is not something that is achieved only by legal regimes or protecting copyright. We must also cultivate and sustain a strong connection and respect that Singaporeans feel for symbols and songs. All of us have a part to play in upholding our symbols and passing them down to future generations. And to that end, MCCY has convened a citizens' workgroup on our national symbols to seek the public's feedback and views on this review, because these symbols indeed, belong to all of us. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Singaporeans who have invested their time and energy to participate in the workgroup as well as those who have responded to our survey on our national symbols.”
“We have thus let the matter rest on this basis. Sir, our national songs hold a special place in the hearts of Singaporeans. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) takes any challenge to our proprietary rights and interests in our national songs and symbols very seriously, and we will take the necessary steps to protect them. The current legal position for our national songs and symbols includes the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem legislation (SAFNA), as well as the Copyright Act. The legislation around the use of the national symbols and the Government's stance on copyright of the national songs are intended to prevent misuse that might diminish or denigrate the standing of such symbols and songs. At the same time, we should not take umbrage at every such use, and resort to legal remedies each time. A careful judgement is made in each case, as to whether and if so what, action is to be taken, along the considerations which I have outlined above. To Mr Gerald Giam's question on whether the Government regularly checks for possible infringements of our symbols, the Ministry monitors reports on the use of the national songs and symbols by the media, does online sensing and also takes public feedback. Our symbols have generally been treated with respect and dignity. There have been rare cases of flag-burning, which usually involved other forms of misconduct, and were dealt with swiftly under the appropriate regulations in the Penal Code. Mr Giam may be aware that MCCY first announced in September 2020 that it had initiated a review of the rules governing the national symbols. We are also looking into whether there is a need to enhance IP protection for our symbols.”
“We thus pressed Mr Mendoza to substantiate his claims. If he could not, then he should withdraw them. We were prepared to initiate legal proceedings, if necessary, to protect our position. At the same time, we also undertook extensive fact-checking in Singapore and in India, to refute Mr Mendoza's claims. We obtained confirmation of contemporaneous and documentary evidence of the writing of the song, "Count on Me, Singapore". Mr Jeremy Monteiro, a respected musician and Cultural Medallion recipient, was witness to the events at the material time, contemporaneously. Members might have read his account in the news of how he worked alongside Mr Hugh Harrison when Mr Harrison composed the song in 1986. In response to our requests for proof of his claims and to substantiate his position, Mr Mendoza then changed his position. He subsequently withdrew his claims. He admitted that he had no evidence to support his claims and confirmed the following in writing: (a) that he unconditionally and irrevocably withdraws all claims to the lyrics and music of the song, "We Can Achieve" which he recognises is similar to "Count on Me, Singapore"; (b) that he had informed all his associates and networks of the above and also instructed all social media platforms to pull down the song "We can Achieve" with immediate effect; and (c) that he had no intention of attacking the integrity or professionalism of Mr Harrison, the original composer of "Count on Me, Singapore". Mr Mendoza's admission leaves no doubt that "Count on Me, Singapore" was written by Mr Harrison and that the rights and ownership in the national song remain with us. Mr Mendoza also wrote to us to confirm that the song "We Can Achieve" has been taken down from known networks and platforms.”
“Sir, our principal consideration, when addressing questions as to the use of copyright in our national songs and symbols, is to ensure that we protect our ownership and interest in our national songs and symbols, as well as to promote the dignified use and respectful use of them. To address Mr Leong Mun Wai's question about the actions the Ministry has taken to protect Singapore's copyright in the case of a composer plagiarising the song "Count on Me Singapore", let me set out the details of this incident. We first received feedback that the song, "We Can Achieve", was featured in several videos, some of which were of school children, apparently from India, singing the song. This song was almost identical to "Count on Me, Singapore", save for minor differences, such as replacing the word "Singapore" with "India", and a line in the song which goes, "we are told no dreams to hold that we can strive for". In the videos, the students appeared to be expressing their love for their country and the song was not disrespectfully treated. The publisher of the song "We Can Achieve" subsequently came forward to acknowledge that the song seemed to be substantially copied from "Count on Me, Singapore" and apologised for it, as well as removed it from their platforms. We did not believe that there was any ill will or malice intended and hence accepted this apology. Shortly after, one Mr Joey Mendoza, then alleged that he, in fact, was the one who wrote the song, "We Can Achieve" in 1983. This was an untenable assertion, given that this song, as I mentioned earlier, was practically identical to "Count on Me, Singapore". If his claim was right, it would be a direct affront to our own ownership and interest in the national song "Count on Me, Singapore".”
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, can I take Question Nos 15 and 16 together?”
“We are confident that with the support of our communities, our Hawker Culture and hawker fare will continue to develop, and we will enjoy new and innovative dishes from our hawkers which will add to our vibrant hawker culture.”
“Like other intangible cultural heritage (ICH), Singapore's Hawker Culture is a "living heritage" of people, places and food that has and will continue to evolve with time. Hawkers have introduced creative and innovative twists to familiar hawker dishes over time, and continue to do so. Some of these hawkers were featured in support of our successful inscription of Hawker Culture onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in December 2020, such as Mr Vijaya Ragavan of Zham Zham Muslim Food's Duck Curry and Mr Noorman Mubarak of Nasi Lemak Ayam Taliwang dish of the same name. MCCY and NHB are committed to ensuring that Singapore's Hawker Culture remains vibrant and relevant for future generations to enjoy. Our priority is to safeguard and promote Hawker Culture to ensure its sustainability, and to fulfil our UNESCO obligations arising from our Hawker Culture inscription. For example, NHB will continue to partner community organisations, educational institutions and the private sector to feature Singapore's Hawker Culture in programmes and platforms. NHB will also support documentation and research projects. These efforts help deepen our understanding and appreciation of Hawker Culture. In addition, NEA has introduced several programmes to provide opportunities for aspiring hawkers to pursue the hawker trade. The Incubation Stall Programme provides subsidised rentals to lower the start-up costs for aspiring hawkers to experiment and innovate over a period of 15 months, while the Hawkers' Development Programme pairs aspiring hawkers with veteran hawker mentors for apprenticeship, creating opportunities for the exchange and even cross-fertilisation of ideas.”
“Equally, we have those which are run on the basis of shared facilities and they have done well, like Nine Years Theatre, like Pangdemonium, as examples. These have done well, even though they have shared facilities. In the context of looking at how we rationalise the space, my colleague Minister of State Low has spoken earlier. The objective is to ensure that spaces remain available for experimentation, for incubation, for community uses and, ultimately, have a safe space for artists to continue to express themselves. That is the overarching objective.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sir, the answer is yes. The intention behind this renovation of 45 Armenian Street is precisely to allow more, newer, emerging, younger arts groups to come and share the space. This discussion with The Substation started more than two years ago. They were aware that the space was to be renovated, having been in the premises for the past 30 years as a Major Company. They were aware also that interim spaces were offered, such as Goodman Arts Centre, for the two years that The Substation will be renovated. And additional financial support would also be given to The Substation whilst they spend two years away from Armenian Street. In the period of time that we have looked at in the last couple of years, at the very minimum, the majority of uses or usage of The Substation was not by The Substation, was by third party users. So, taking that into account, amongst others, the view was taken that he arts community will be better served if The Substation, post-renovation, will return as a multi-tenanted option. And users, such as The Substation, was, in fact, invited back; they will be part of the multi-tenants, and they will have access to all of the renovated facilities. So, that was the thinking behind Armenian Street. 3.45 pm In relation to the various models that, I think, Ms Lim also spoke about earlier, there are many which are run by arts companies. TheatreWorks, for instance, is one; Objectifs is another. But, equally, I will say that in Singapore, we have a model which has a mix of different types of management systems and operating models. We have those which are run by their own arts companies.”
“[Applause.] Chinese Culture in Singapore”
“The National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) will lead efforts to raise awareness and also enhance the adoption of BIPS. NVPC will introduce a BIPS Clinic for interested corporates to tap into this, to share more and learn more about the scheme. Sir, let me conclude. MCCY's overarching mission is to bring people together, forging community spirit and intertwining our stories to form a cohesive Singapore Tapestry. That has been the essence and hallmark of everything that we do and all our programmes at MCCY. However, for much of 2020, with the pandemic, this was not easy. In fact, we had to work on the opposite – keeping people safe meant keeping people apart. Overnight, many of my Ministry's staff, our partners, our stakeholders and our many community leaders had to pivot to safe management measures and play a variety of different roles to keep Singaporeans safe. All of them went the extra mile, well outside their usual comfort zone, to protect the safety of Singaporeans and I thank them very, very much. But we also soon realised that being apart did not break us apart. It did not dampen our spirits and it did not diminish our desire to keep the threads of our Singapore tapestry strong, cohesive and resilient. I am sure that each of us, as I have said earlier, would have our own anecdotes of ordinary Singaporeans doing extraordinary things, going the extra mile, to help one another through this crisis. These are the stories that will define us when, one day, we look back and reflect on this crisis of our generation. We will remember that, in this crisis, we came out stronger because we went in together. That, Sir, is the unfinished story of the Singapore Tapestry. Let us continue to weave these stories together and, indeed, we will be stronger as a nation.”
“These include online and, subsequently, physical programmes for persons with disabilities as well. The responsibility for building a caring society must involve every Singaporean. So, on that score, we plan for every town in Singapore to have a coordinating node that brings community groups and resources together. In 2018, SG Cares Volunteer Centres (VCs) were initiated to achieve this. VCs are based in the community, ground-up, chosen to develop and deploy volunteers, foster partnerships – and this includes existing structures that already exist on the ground so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel – and strengthen volunteer management capabilities. Since end 2018, 12 VCs have been appointed and have engaged about 10,000 volunteers. A few weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Tin Pei Ling and I witnessed the launch of a VC at Geylang town, operated by Care Community Services Society. We met with the many staff, their volunteers and the corporate partners of the VC who are doing a wonderful job mobilising community stakeholders to support the vulnerable. So, we will continue to expand these efforts, and there will be an SG Cares Volunteer Centre in all 24 towns by March 2022. Sir, we also want to partner corporates to care for the community. In 2016, the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPS) was introduced to encourage corporate volunteerism. Through the scheme, businesses enjoy 250% tax deduction on wages and related expenses when their employees volunteer at Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs). To encourage corporates to continue caring, Deputy Prime Minister Heng is keen to encourage this and announced that BIPS will be extended till 31 December 2023.”
“This includes mystery museum tours to explore lesser known museums, a travelling exhibition and complementary museum programmes. My colleague, Minister of State Low Yen Ling, will share more details on these plans. Sir, as we strive to build a cohesive and confident nation, it is vital for Singaporeans to care for one another and to contribute to a better Singapore for all. A key focus of MCCY is our youths. Last September, I spoke about how our youths of today will be our leaders of tomorrow. I know that our young people, especially fresh graduates, at this time, worry that the crisis will have a long-lasting impact on their careers. We understand these concerns and we will do our best to help overcome them. My colleague, Minister of State Alvin Tan, will share more about MCCY's efforts to provide opportunities and other pathways for these young people to overcome these challenges and to emerge stronger. Ms Hany Soh and Ms Joan Pereira asked how the Government will encourage more people to care. That is a very important topic. When the pandemic hit, our youths stepped up to help those in need. Youth Corps Singapore adjusted its volunteering activities to meet community demands. For instance, they partnered IMDA to equip seniors with digital literacy skills – very much needed during the digital era of the pandemic – via the Digital Learning Circles. Youth Corps will continue with these good efforts. About 1,400 youths will be engaged through the Youth Corps Leaders Programme and Programme X in 2021. These youths will develop the skills to implement projects to address specific societal needs. Further, Youth Corps will offer about 4,000 volunteering opportunities for youths.”
“Second, content related to hawker centre landmarks will be displayed online and at selected MRT stations as part of the "Ride & Discover" exhibition. Third, we will continue to showcase our hawker culture through festivals, exhibitions and programmes at our museums, using grants from NHB, and taking on board the ideas and suggestions that Mr Darryl David has sketched out. Twenty-twenty-one marks the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the Preservation of Monuments Act. The preservation of national monuments is important to safeguard our heritage. Our heritage encompasses not only intangible ones like hawker culture, which we spoke about, but also of our heritage buildings. These structures have withstood the test of time and they very visibly embody our nation's heritage. We regularly restore our national monuments and we will carry out a series of restoration projects in the coming years to ensure that they continue to stand strong. Completed restorations include the Abdul Gafoor Mosque, Sultan Mosque and the St James Power Station. Moving ahead, one major project will be restoration of the Istana Main Building, built between 1867 and 1869. The Istana and Sri Temasek were collectively gazetted as a National Monument in 1992. They have borne witness to many historical milestones, including our transition to a sovereign state. Restoration works for the Istana will commence in 2023 while other sites, like the former Istana Kampong Gelam, will commence in 2022. We will commemorate the Golden Jubilee of our National Monuments with an exhibition in June 2021. This exhibition will showcase the preservation journey of all 73 National Monuments for the very first time. We will also be commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Museum Roundtable with a year-long celebration.”
“But there is one more ingredient for success – and that is our collective will and our collective unity to pursue a shared goal. It has to be all of us, working together, united, pulling in the same direction, for this project to have chance. Uplifting Singapore football is a national project, and I encourage all of us to rally around our common goal. We will continue to do our best to build a sustainable and resilient football eco-system which Singaporeans can be proud of. Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will share more about these initiatives later on. 1.45 pm Another area of pride and confidence for Singaporeans is our cultural heritage. Our cultural landscape is a rich fusion of traditions, rituals and crafts. These are also inextricably bound to each of us and to our own national identity. We must continue to commemorate and pass it on for future generations. We will redouble our efforts to safeguard both our tangible and intangible heritage and celebrate cultural icons like our Cultural Medallion recipients who have contributed so richly to our nation's development. Mr Darryl David talked about celebrating our hawker culture, making all of us hungry with his very graphic descriptions of food. Last December, our hawker culture was inscribed on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and I thank everyone for their overwhelming support. Indeed, we are very, very proud of our hawkers. MCCY and NHB remain committed to promoting our hawker culture. First, for the Singapore Heritage Festival 2021, we can look forward to a digital exhibition of poetic and graphical interpretations of our hawker culture.”
“A national team that can perform at the highest level affirms Singapore’s multiple pathways of success and is a source of national pride. It can also expand opportunities for all – to play, coach or just to be that crazy football fan cheering our team on. Our football is not quite where we would like it to be. We can do more, we can do better, to bring back the Kallang Roar and give our young Lions every opportunity to pursue their dreams. Mr Chay asked what steps can be taken. Let me outline some quick thoughts on this. First, we will have to grow the base of participation. Young talent must be nurtured. We have to encourage more to play and give structure to the development of young talent. Our young players spend a lot of their time in school. So, what we do with schools will be important. We are working with MOE to have a nationwide adoption of a national football curriculum. We will build football academies working with schools, with clear pathways for progression. We must have good coaches and a common system of play with enhanced training infrastructure, wrapped around a football academy for those with the best potential, so that they can train, they can compete and, at the same time, they can continue with their studies. Importantly, we must look at how a student can continue to train at the highest levels while still continuing to gain a first-class education. We will consider scholarships for the best young talents so they can have access to a high quality training environment, whether here or overseas, whilst pursuing their studies. We must also focus on matters off the pitch – areas like fitness, nutrition, discipline and a player's mental fortitude. All of them are factors which are equally important to success.”
“We have started consultations on the Code with non-government organisations. And over the next six months, there will be more engagements with athletes, coaches, parents, sport leaders, among others, to refine the Code so that we can achieve a set of standards that will engender confidence in sport participation. Second, to address incidents, a confidential third-party reporting channel and enhanced case management will offer affected individuals access to reporting channels and support. Third, to assure participants, the Safe Sport Commission will introduce an accreditation framework. The criteria will be based on the adoption of the Unified Code, implementation of relevant policies and training of persons involved. Sports organisations that meet the criteria will be accredited through a Safe Sport Mark. This will help sports participants to easily identify sporting organisations that are committed to practising Safe Sport. The Safe Sport Programme also contributes to the on-going Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development, although not all sport participants are women. We want to facilitate an on-going and enabling sporting environment that protects both women and girls. This is also an example of the Government’s approach to addressing women’s development in partnership with stakeholders. In sports, apart from providing a positive environment and framework for our sporting community, we must also have bold ambitions. Mr Mark Chay spoke about this, so did Mr Sitoh Yih Pin who asked about our plans to uplift Singapore’s football. Sir, football is a sport with mass appeal. It is the most participated team sport in Singapore, bringing together Singaporeans from all walks of life.”
“Mr Mark Chay, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about our plans to prepare our athletes in the upcoming games whilst at the same time ensuring their safety. This year, our athletes can look forward to several Major Games, such as the Olympics, Paralympics, SEA Games and ASEAN Para Games. We are supporting our athletes’ training while keeping an eye, of course, on the global pandemic situation. This includes facilitating safe travel for athletes to participate in overseas competitions to qualify for the games, to train and to hone their competitive edge as they prepare to peak at these sporting events. The Singapore Sport Institute and the National Youth Sports Institute specialists are working with our athletes as they resume full training intensity. Let me emphasise that safety, especially our athletes' safety, will remain our utmost priority. As more international qualification competition dates are released, we will schedule our athletes, coaches and officials to be vaccinated progressively. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about our efforts to provide a safe and positive environment within our sports eco-system. This is a very important issue for us. No sportsperson, male or female, should feel unsafe as they train, compete or play in any sports in any role. We also need to address emerging trends, such as cyberbullying and online harassment. Therefore, a Safe Sport Programme will be established through the Safe Sport Commission. The programme will be grounded on three actions – Prevent, Address and Assure. First, to prevent inappropriate behaviour, a Unified Code will be developed to provide the sporting community with a shared reference point against inappropriate behaviour.”
“This complements the Jobs Support Scheme which is already in place and which offers wage support for sports operators. For individuals, we will extend the Training Allowance Grant and the Structured Mentorship Programme till March 2022. My colleague Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will share more details about our plans to support our sports sectors. Sir, all of these measures will undoubtedly help the sectors adapt to the new normal – at least help them financially. But if you ask any artist or athlete, they will tell you that their true lifeblood is really in performing before an appreciative audience and having a vocal and supportive spectatorship. These sectors have much to offer. And there is something for everyone – whether it is keeping active through online fitness classes, cheering our athletes on, or enjoying a live performance. I urge all of you to support our artists, athletes and instructors as they go on with these performances. Sir, despite the pandemic, 2021 is shaping up to be an exciting year for the sporting fraternity, as sports activities have progressively resumed. With the recent move to allow group activities of up to eight persons, community-based teams can take on a four-vs-four format. Furthermore, we are starting to host international events. Last month, we successfully hosted the Singapore Tennis Open, an ATP 250 event. Over 50 players from more than 15 countries competed, with up to 250 spectators per day allowed in the semi-finals and finals matches. We showed the world that Singapore can resume international sports events safely. Looking ahead, we can prepare for the return of more marquee sporting events, such as the Rugby-7s in October.”
“As at December 2020, SportSG has put together over 400 training courses with a capacity for 8,500 coaches and instructors. In addition, more than 500 temporary jobs have been created through the #SGUnited jobs. On top of the $50 million Sports Resilience Package (SRP) announced last October, we will provide a further $25 million to enhance the SRP. How will we do so? First, we will introduce a new SEP Project Grant. Like the SEP Grant under the ACRP, this grant supports sports SEPs to collaborate with one another and also other organisations, to develop projects that enhance the health and wellness of Singaporeans. We recognise the important role which many sports freelancers and self-employed persons play, and we want to support you in this endeavour. This grant has three objectives. One, create more work opportunities for sports Self-employed Persons (SEPs) and freelancers; Two, support capability development through the planning and execution of projects; and Three, support the resumption of sporting and community activities as far as possible. Second, we will expand the Enterprise Innovation and Capability Development Grant. Last year, we piloted this at $3 million for the sports industry to build stronger digital capabilities, develop innovative solutions and also, look at how we can upskill. These initiatives, I must say, are not just reactions to the pandemic. They equip our sporting industry with tools to thrive in the future. So, we will provide another $22.5 million to boost these initiatives. Third, we will extend grants to provide continued support for both businesses as well as individuals. For sports companies, we will extend the Operating Grant till December 2021.”
“Indeed, this is the one fund that when I sit down and discuss the Budget with the Deputy Prime Minister, I did not mind telling him it was depleted – because it tells us that we have built up an active culture of arts patronage and philanthropy. And we will review the CMF with MOF, with a view towards an additional top-up of the fund in 2022. Minister of State Low Yen Ling will speak more about MCCY’s plans to support our arts and heritage sectors to innovate and also deliver programmes in this new normal. Let me turn the focus now to the sports sector, which plays an equally important role in our social fabric. In 2012, SportSG launched Vision 2030 as a roadmap to empower Singaporeans to Live Better Through Sport. This was reviewed in 2019, leading to the launch of Vision 2030 Recharged! where we renewed focus on tailoring programmes for various segments of the population. Over the years, we have built new sports centres under the Sports Facilities Master Plan and also rejuvenated existing ones. I hope you have been using them. In 2017, we launched Active Health as a social movement to encourage Singaporeans to take ownership of their own health and wellness. Last year, we launched the ActiveSG Circle as a virtual sports centre to continue engaging the public with online classes to get active. This was something we could do in person physically prior to the pandemic, but we have moved online. At MCCY, we recognise the power of sports in bringing Singaporeans together and we will continue to build on these efforts. Many of our sports businesses and SEPs have also been affected by the pandemic. In 2020, we provided our coaches and fitness instructors with jobs and training opportunities.”
“This will support the transformation of arts and culture organisations, as well as support their recovery and sustainability in a post-pandemic situation. We want to do this collaboratively because we are stepping into a new normal, one that may last for some time. So, NAC will engage stakeholders to gather views on these new schemes, so that we can refine them where necessary before they are launched in a few months, in June 2021. In addition, we will continue to help the sector build capabilities that will see them through in the longer term. NAC will continue to provide training grants to our cultural practitioners. These include on-going schemes like the Capability Development Grant which have supported artists since 2012. MCCY also supports MOE’s initiative to form an alliance between LASALLE and NAFA. The new arts University will further develop the creative capacity of our youths. It facilitates learning and networking opportunities across creative disciplines and provides industry-relevant training. Sir, we also take a longer term view towards encouraging cultural philanthropy in partnership with the private and people sectors. We established the Cultural Matching Fund (CMF) in 2013, to provide a dollar-for-dollar matching of private cash donations to arts and heritage charities. The CMF has, indeed, been well-received. Over 100 charities have benefited from it between 2014 and 2019, with close to $265 million matched. This growth in cultural philanthropy has been sustained with the top-up of CMF in 2017 and we wish to keep up this spirit of giving.”
“A further $20 million in support measures will be provided to enhance the Arts and Culture Resilience Package. This comes on top of the $55 million introduced in April last year and which we saw in the roll-out of the ACRP Operating Grant in October last year. Let me say a little bit more about these details. First, we will extend the ACRP operating grant and venue hire subsidy. This will help our arts organisations and artists defray operating costs, which are usually a substantial portion of the costs that they have to meet each month. Second, we will introduce new measures to address some specific concerns. Last December, NAC organised two ESCs involving arts organisations and self-employed practitioners. The key themes that were brought up include: rethinking arts business and monetisation models and how they modernise as well; growing digital capabilities; and also, how do they collaborate between themselves within the sector. We have taken on board these comments and will introduce a new Self-employed Person (SEP) Grant. This will enhance support for SEPs and gig workers, as Ms Janet Ang had asked, across the sector to collaborate on projects with one another, or, indeed, with other arts organisations. This will help to build capabilities and create more work opportunities for SEPs. Sir, we recognise that freelancing, or self-employment, adds spontaneity and innovation to the sector. It helps us to uplift the arts eco-system, allows there to be a bit of a mix-and-match kind of approach, and this grant is aimed at preserving that. Whilst we focus on these matters, we also must have a clear eye on what a post-pandemic arts eco-system must look like. To this end, we have introduced a new Business Transformation Fund.”
“As we mature and develop as a society, our arts, our culture, our heritage will only become more essential and a greater and more integral part of us. They not only uplift our spirits but also give expression to our shared heritage. They help enhance our sense of belonging, binding us together. We must continue to develop the sector, by nurturing our artistic talents, providing them with opportunities, spaces and resources to incubate, to experiment, to innovate and to collaborate with one another. This will facilitate creative art-making and presentation, while ensuring that this also benefits the wider arts community, and all Singaporeans. We invested significantly in growing capabilities and audiences through the 2012 Arts and Culture Strategic Review, and Our SG Arts and Heritage Plans launched in 2018. We also supported arts organisations to deliver a vibrant arts calendar of over 9,000 activities in 2019. That year, we saw a record high attendance of 15.6 million at arts and culture events, and a record high visitorship of 9.6 million to museums and heritage institutions. However, the pandemic has had a profound impact on the sector, a sector that thrives on presence, not only onstage, but in the audience. Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Janet Ang talked about the survival of our arts groups, and asked about our plans to support our artists. While live performances resumed safely in Phase Three, the return of capacity audiences will take some time. This has to be balanced against the need to keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe. This, however, has put pressure on arts organisations and artists to cover operating costs. We will, therefore, do what we can to safeguard livelihoods and retain capabilities in these sectors.”
“Through this, students not only participate in CCAs based outside of their schools, but they also get a chance to do so with students from other schools, mixing with students from different backgrounds, coming from a diverse range of schools. We will be reviewing this pilot to expand the programme. SportSG’s Academies and Clubs have programmes for youths across 17 sports, where students can take part in these sports, play with their peers from different schools. Participation in this program has been encouraging. We started with 15,000 in 2016. We have grown it to 90,000 in 2019. Second, we regularly engage our youths through volunteering activities and leadership development programmes organised by the National Youth Council (NYC), where students practise teamwork and collaboration. Third, we build mutual understanding through shared experiences. NAC’s WeCare Arts Fund and NHB’s HeritageCares support Social Service Agencies to help beneficiaries access arts and heritage programmes alongside their fellow Singaporeans. Our artists and athletes have played a key role in helping us progress as a cohesive society. Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about our plans to sustain interest in sports, arts and culture and how MCCY will help artists and athletes embrace the new normal. I think several other Members raised the point as well. Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced during the Budget that the Arts and Culture Resilience Package (ACRP) and Sport Resilience Package (SRP) will be enhanced. Let me now share more details on these measures. Let me start with the arts and culture sector. Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Janet Ang spoke about how critical the arts is.”
“So, we therefore initiated the Singapore Together Alliances for Action (AfAs). The AfAs are action-oriented, cross-sector collaborations, tackling complex issues which confront our society. This includes economic growth opportunities, youth mental well-being, which is a growing important issue, and lower wage workers. MCCY will set up two SG Together AfAs, bringing the total to 18. The first will be on emerging needs and volunteerism. This will focus on supporting mental wellness, helping seniors adapt to the new normal, and facilitating in-kind contributions. The second is on corporate purpose. This partners corporates to develop a national framework on corporate purpose and measuring impact, to guide them in doing well by doing good. My colleague, Minister of State Alvin will share more details of these Alliances. At MCCY, our scope is wide – arts, heritage, youth, sports, community relations. But at its core, it is about nurturing a more caring people, a more cohesive society and a more confident nation, and building ties that bind us not only to one another, but to the place that we call home, giving us a sense of place and of purpose, anchored to Singapore. I talked about our Singapore Tapestry last year. We will continue to weave our diverse threads together, and ensure that this Tapestry stays strong and cohesive. Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about our efforts to foster greater social cohesion and mixing among youths. MCCY provides opportunities for Singaporeans of diverse backgrounds to interact. First, we encourage students to meet through arts and sports. The National Arts Council and SportSG have been partnering MOE on the Strategic Partnership Co-Curricular Activity (SP-CCA), the pilot that we have initiated in 2019.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I thank Members who have spoken. I will address some of the cuts here and my colleagues from the Ministry will take the others. Sir, making Singapore a place we can proudly call home is at the heart of what we do at MCCY. We can achieve this, through the collective action of everyone. United, cohesive, resilient; forging forward together, as Ms Joan Pereira has suggested. She and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about MCCY’s strategies to ensure that our society comes together in the face of uncertainty. Sir, when we look back at history, one day, I am sure that our collective responses to COVID-19 will be seen as a defining moment of our country's history. Where we go from here, the paths we choose to take – will define us. And our values and our character will shine through in the choices we make. And I am moved by how our communities stepped forward and supported one another. Ms Tin shared some anecdotal stories, and I am sure many of us in this House will have our own stories. To cite one example, the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles worked with the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry to distribute more than 18,000 Hari Raya cookies to 16 community isolation facilities for migrant workers. Our community leaders have rallied behind our national vaccination programmes, with senior religious leaders supporting the programme. This is the spirit of Singapore Together! All hands on deck, partnering one another and with the Government to build a better Singapore. In February 2021, we published the Singapore Together Emerging Stronger Conversations (ESCs) report. It took stock of about 17,000 reflections and aspirations for us to emerge stronger. Conversations are good. But they must also lead to action, and tangible outcomes.”
“I would add that we have, in fact, on occasion repealed ouster clauses when they are no longer necessary. This was the case for the former section 14(5) of the Employment Act. Sir, to conclude, I would reiterate that of all three branches of Government, the Executive is best placed to make decisions and act quickly on policy matters. It is accountable to Parliament and to the people of Singapore. We must continue to foster a system of governance which maintains a clear eye on outcomes – to improve our citizens’ lives – I refer Members again to the handout on Singapore’s social and economic indicators. This is proof of what we have achieved for Singapore with our political and governance system. It demonstrates that our political and judicial system promotes good governance and the rule of law, with clear and tangibly positive outcomes for Singapore. Thank you, Mr Speaker.”
“Mr Pillai has also cited various other non-security related legislation containing privative clauses, notwithstanding that these are outside the realm of national security, where speed and efficiency are also critical considerations. For a globalised city-state, thriving on open borders and human resources, immigration and foreign manpower – two areas that Mr Murali cited – are key areas of concern. They require a careful balancing of sensitive and polycentric considerations, such as foreign relations; transborder crime; economic and manpower planning; and protection of businesses and families. Immigration and foreign manpower have serious implications for our society. The experience of Australia, on immigration challenges in Court, as explained in the handout at part 1 of Annex 5, illustrates why we take the approach that we do. We have already seen xenophobia, social schisms develop in other countries and we are not immune to these pressures. It would not be appropriate to litigate such matters because the Courts do not have institutional capability to know of, to consider and to balance the many considerations and concerns involved. Resolution of policy judgements by the Courts also lacks the democratic legitimacy of Parliament. As the Chief Justice noted in the lecture I mentioned earlier, Courts are not especially well placed to answer such social, economic and political questions. Mr Pillai has asked for a review of the ouster clauses on our statute books. I would like to assure him that we already do this regularly. We will continue to review the need for such clauses and, where necessary, carefully calibrate these clauses to the intended policy objectives behind such an ouster.”
“It leaves matters that are rightly determined by democratically elected bodies in the hands of these elected representatives. And to paraphrase Mr Ruddock, politically controversial matters, which involve competing objectives and values, should be determined by Parliament. Mr Pillai has referred to clauses which exclude or restrict one or more of the grounds for judicial review. The Court has held that such ouster or privative clauses are not per se wrong. We have also taken a principled and calibrated approach to the use of such clauses, and they are proposed only after careful consideration of the policy objective behind each of the proposed clauses; whether alternative legislative tools may be employed to achieve this; and whether the clause may be calibrated to restrict only some of the bases for judicial review. Thereafter, they are subject to rigorous debate in this House, in Parliament, and passed into law with Parliament’s assent. Through this approach, trust – not just within the branches but vis-à-vis each branch and the population at large – has been nurtured and sustained. Mr Pillai has referred to both the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), which both provide for powers of detention. Such powers, as Mr Pillai has acknowledged, are necessary, to allow for pre-emptive action, to safeguard national security, and because criminal prosecution may not be possible, for example, due to evidential difficulties of admissibility. In these circumstances, Parliament, in accordance with its legislative power, vested the discretion to exercise powers of detention with the Executive.”
“Second, it means that the Judiciary should not be diffident about performing its constitutional role when called upon to invalidate unlawful action… The difference is between a paradigm of confrontation and containment informed by mutual distrust and self-preservation and one of partnership and cooperation within a framework of governance and legality.” The principles of administrative law in Singapore give expression to this overarching approach and is based on two fundamental principles flowing from the constitutional separation of powers. First, the Executive must act within the law, and it is the role of the courts to say what the law is. The Courts can, in general, review executive action on three grounds: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Each of these grounds leaves wide latitude to the Executive. Second, and equally importantly, the Courts recognise that the exercise of executive authority is ultimately the responsibility of the Executive and not the Courts. It is the Executive which is vested with executive authority under the Constitution; has an elected mandate, which is accountable to Parliament and at the polls; and has the institutional competence and resources to make judgement calls between the competing considerations that often arise in policy decisions. For this reason, the Courts have repeatedly emphasised that they do not substitute their judgment for that of the Executive, and are concerned with the decision-making process, and not its merits. I refer Members back to part 2 of Annex 5, which sets out these key principles, and we agree with the approach that the Courts have taken. It avoids the quagmires often seen overseas, when judiciaries step into the spheres of other branches of government.”
“Lord Sumption himself notes that this state of affairs is a product of political reality in the UK – judges have attempted to fill the gap left by politics, as the latter has lost its prestige. He makes a similar observation of the United States, and what he refers to as "distortions" in their governance structure that have resulted from political gridlock. Sir, these approaches elsewhere are informed by different social and historical contexts. In Singapore, we have not gone down this route. We have been, and must remain careful to operate our system to maintain trust, and to keep a constructive balance between the three branches of Government. The approach taken by our Courts has been instrumental to the success of the Singapore approach. Singapore Courts have been careful to strike an appropriate balance, between preserving the Government’s ability to act decisively in the public interest, whilst imposing adequate safeguards to check against unlawful action. It is a delicate but very important balance, that not many other jurisdictions have managed to strike successfully. This judicial philosophy is best encapsulated in our Chief Justice’s remarks in a 2018 lecture, and I quote, "… in Singapore… we have found that executive power can best be checked when courts eschew politics and secure a relationship of trust and respect between the three branches by recognising and maintaining the legitimate space of each. … First, it means that Courts should not see themselves as antagonists whose role is to obstruct governmental action, but rather as equal partners with the other branches in the common project to promote efficient administration and good and proper governance, which the Judiciary contributes to by upholding the rule of law.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, in India, some commentators have said judicial activism has become judicial overreach, into policy areas. We have set out one example in the handout. Judges of the Supreme Court have themselves commented that the Judiciary has strayed into the executive domain. There is a lengthy list, as Members will see from the handout, including nursery admissions, the number of free beds in hospitals, the size of speed-breakers on roads, and many others. I think Members will agree with me that for Singapore, it is best if these matters are left for the Executive to determine. In Australia, the Government there has long been beset by litigation over immigration matters. Judicial review has been used by non-citizens to prolong their stay, at the cost of public resources. Australia’s former Minister for Immigration Philip Ruddock has observed that such politically controversial matters, which involve competing objectives and values, were for Parliament to determine as representatives of the people, and I agree. In England, former Supreme Court Judge, Lord Sumption, has detected, and I quote, "a noticeable change of judicial mood" in recent decades. The "special cases", once thought to be beyond the courts’ purview, such as foreign policy, "have one by one yielded to the power of the judges", unquote. It is therefore no surprise that civil servants in the UK are now given a detailed 104-page guide – aptly or, perhaps, sardonically – titled "Judge Over Your Shoulder", or "JOYS" to help them assess legal risks. They have also had two rounds of law reform review on judicial review twice in the course of the last eight years.”
“Our system should empower them to take effective action rather than to impair their ability to act through gridlock. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, many other countries have taken different approaches, and struck a different balance. Their courts have embroiled themselves in the realm of politics and policy-making – not always with happy results. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout which contains some examples from these jurisdictions.”
“Thank you, Sir. These indicators show that we have succeeded in achieving our priorities, and more. How do these priorities find expression in the system of government and political structure, that we have? Like many others, our system is based on the separation of powers: three branches of government, each with its own sphere of power and responsibility. Our constitutional framework defines the responsibilities of each branch of government. Parliament, which passes laws to promote these objectives. Through its power to amend the Constitution, Parliament also decides on the overarching framework for our system. The Executive, which administers the laws and formulates policies to secure these objectives. And the Judiciary, which applies the law faithfully, when disputes are brought before the Courts. In some other systems, the focus has been to tightly circumscribe and police the Executive. This leads to gridlock and inaction and we do not subscribe to this. Such an approach loses sight also of another key principle. For the governance system to work, there must be mutual trust and respect, for each branch's institutional expertise and competence. Power and responsibility must be divided, to empower each branch, not divide. What are the reasons for our approach, Sir? Our system must ensure that we can act quickly, move decisively to navigate challenges, to seize opportunities and avoid crises. But when crises cannot be avoided, to deal then with them efficiently and effectively. Parliament and the Executive handle this, and they must account for the success or failure of their policies through the democratic process. In other words, the Executive answers to Parliament, and Parliament answers to voters in elections.”