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 25 of 45.
“Sir, let me now quickly touch on the simplified winding up. Part 10A of the IRDA Bill establishes a simplified winding up programme, which a company may resolve to be wound up voluntarily under. Under this voluntary winding up, a company is wound up without the need for a Court application to place the company into winding up. This is modelled on the existing creditors’ voluntary winding up process that is already found in the Act. Before making an application, the company must pass a special resolution, authorising the making of the application and so on. And upon acceptance of a company into the simplified winding up programme, the voluntary winding up of the company commences at that stage. The Official Receiver is the liquidator of the company under the new section 250K(3). The Official Receiver may also appoint a qualified person to act as a special manager under section 250M. The winding up is treated as if it were a creditors’ voluntary winding up, as I mentioned earlier, under section 250K(2). The provisions that therefore apply to the creditors' voluntary winding up will also apply in relation to the company, unless they are modified under section 250L and the conditions are set out in section 250L. A company is discharged from the simplified winding up programme under section 250N – when the company is dissolved; or an order is made by the Court to wind up the company, stay the proceedings or terminate the winding up. Lastly, the new section 250O sets out the non-exhaustive circumstances in which the Official Receiver, as the liquidator, may apply to the Court under section 124 of the IRDA to wind up the company.”
“Nevertheless, the Court retains overriding discretion under the new section 72M(5) to take into account the agreement or disagreement of any related party, and if the circumstances so require and the result of doing so would be fair and equitable to all creditors. So, the Court still retains an overriding discretion to do so. The Court may, under the new section 72M(6), without hearing all arguments, grant or dismiss an application, as the case may be; and instead of having the company required to engage counsel, a duly authorised officer of the company may represent the company in the relevant court proceedings without the leave of court. This is provided for under the new section 72N. Section 72Q provides that the programme will have a shelf life in the first instance of 90 days. This is not uncommon in many other jurisdictions around the world even for the usual restructuring process. This keeps the process on an even keel and if more time is needed, an application for extension can be sought. But in the first instance 90 days is being given to enter into the arrangements, and also the limited timeframe is designed not to unfairly prejudice creditors because during that period of time, whilst this is being looked into, there is a moratorium. Under the general framework, Sir, typically at least three applications are required. First, for the moratorium itself; second, for leave to convene a meeting; and third, for the sanction of the proposed compromise or arrangement and then oftentimes, a financial adviser will also be required. This simplified process brings it into one single application and, if accepted, the company will enjoy the benefits of the moratorium early on and really only one application would be needed.”
“The company may make an application under the new section 72M(1) for approval of the proposed compromise or arrangement an,d the Court may only approve the compromise or arrangement if there is an agreement of a majority of two-thirds in value of creditors. So, two-thirds in the value of the debts that are owed by the company must approve this scheme. There is no specific number of creditors required to assent to the scheme, unlike a traditional scheme of arrangement. So, the thresholds are slightly more relaxed than in the usual scheme of arrangement under 210 of the Act. Sir, it is worth noting that this reduced threshold takes into account feedback that we received that it will typically be too onerous as a condition to be fulfilled by micro and small companies especially in this current business environment. In looking at whether the threshold is met, the Court must disregard the agreement or disagreement of any related party of the company. So, you cannot have a company which has several creditors who are related to officers of the company come together and decide on an outcome and use that consensus or agreement to bind the other creditors. There will be three classes in the scheme: secured creditors, preferential unsecured creditors and unsecured ordinary creditors. This is intended to provide certainty to the company on the default approach towards classification of creditors, given the simpler nature of the debt structure of these micro and small companies and, of course, to avoid potential litigation which sometimes happens in relation to the way in which the company classifies its creditors.”
“You come to an arrangement with your creditors, which is then subsequently submitted to the High Court for approval. Instead of two applications to the Court required in a typical scheme of arrangement, the pre-package only requires one application. Upon the acceptance of a company into the simplified debt restructuring programme and before the company is discharged, the company enjoys a statutory moratorium under the new section 72K(1), and amongst others, it restrains the commencement or continuation of any proceedings against the company. The company is also restrained from disposing of its property under the new 72K(3), unless it is done in good faith and in the ordinary course of its business. This is to ensure that the assets are not dissipated whilst there is a moratorium in place. Creditors are also prohibited from exercising certain contractual rights under an ipso facto clause under the new section 72T, which applies section 440 which is the ipso facto clause of IRDA. This is done with modifications, as appropriate, for smaller companies. This framework balances the interests of the various stakeholders by providing, on the one hand, breathing room via the moratorium to the company but, at the same time, preserving the rights of creditors to have access to the company that has not wrongly and unfairly dissipated its assets. Sir, there will be a Restructuring Advisor appointed for the company to assist the company to formulate a proposed compromise or arrangement. This Restructuring Advisor will be available to advise the company to prepare its papers and generally to guide the company through this process.”
“These requirements include a limit on the total liabilities of the company, not exceeding $2 million; limits on the number of creditors and employees, not exceeding 30 employees and 50 creditors respectively; the amount realisable in the winding up, not exceeding $50,000 and the company is not in the midst of any other debt restructuring or, otherwise, some other form of insolvency process. To provide flexibility, the figures that I have mentioned to Members may be substituted by the Minister abd prescribed by way of an Order in the Gazette. Where there is any objection to the acceptance of the applicant into the relevant programme, the Official Receiver must consider the objection and decide whether or not that particular company qualifies. If not, to exclude; if so, then to allow the company to avail itself of the process. The applicant company has to pay a fee and a deposit and this will be used in a way which would defray the costs of the Official Receiver. In order to provide flexibility to address companies that merit assistance under the programme even if they might miss out on the eligibility requirements, the Minister may direct the Official Receiver, under the new sections 72H or 250H, to send and publish the notice of application and then to accept the applicant into the programme. Part 5A of the IRDA Bill establishes the simplified restructuring programme and I will just quickly take Members through the most salient provisions. This, as Members might appreciate, is modelled on the existing pre-packaged scheme in section 71 of the existing IRDA. Under the pre-packaged scheme process, a proposed compromise or arrangement is worked out among the company and its creditors but done out of Court, without having to invoke the Court process.”
“This ensures that the framework is able to meet the needs of small and micro businesses. Separately, the Bill also has one miscellaneous amendment which I will cover at the end, in relation to the licensing framework. Sir, let me take the Members now, very briefly, through the key features of the Bill. The Simplified Insolvency Programme comprises the restructuring programme and the liquidation programme. In some ways the process and the formulae for determining who qualifies for both have similarities so I will cover them very briefly. In relation to the application processes for both programmes, the new sections 72B and 250B of the IRDA Bill, the programmes will open for application by eligible companies for a “prescribed period”. Subject to further consultation and review, we intend for this at first instance to be six months. This may be shortened or extended for a period to be determined by the Minister. Overall, this window for application will be shorter than the overall lifespan of the proposed provisions, which is three years after its commencement. Where any company applies to the Official Receiver under the new sections 72E or 250D under the relevant “prescribed period”, and the Official Receiver assesses the eligibility requirements and are satisfied on the face of the application, then the Official Receiver under the new sections 72G or 250G, will send a notice of the application to the applicant company and all creditors named in the application and, in the case of section 250G, which is for liquidation, also to every contributory or officer named in the application, and publish the notice on the designated website. The requirements are intended to ensure that only cases that are suitable for this simplified process are accepted.”
“In Singapore, in 2018, there were over 250,000 micro and small enterprises. These are enterprises with annual revenues of less than $1 million and $10 million respectively. So, micro is $1 million, and "small" would be $10 million. Together they form about 95% of Singapore's enterprise framework. Thus, it is likely that a significant number of financially distressed companies, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be micro and small companies. We have received feedback that these companies, in particular, may still find it financially challenging to apply the provisions under IRDA. Applying tailored processes to these micro and small companies however could help these companies get back on their feet in the same way as Swee Hong, which has benefited from IRDA. This Bill, Sir, therefore, introduces a Simplified Insolvency Programme comprising two bespoke temporary processes to better suit the needs of micro and small companies: First, to restructure the debts of viable companies to rehabilitate their businesses. For example, where there is a ready investor prepared to come into the business, or alternatively, where the company is in a position to renegotiate with its creditors. Second, to wind up the company, where the business has ceased to be viable but in a quick, efficient and low-cost manner. The proposed amendments seek to provide temporary processes that fit these purposes and benefit stakeholders of the company such as employees and, of course, also the trading counter-parties, creditors and shareholders by reducing the time it would take to either do a restructuring or a liquidation and maximising potential recoveries. The new processes were developed in consultation with public agencies and stakeholders from the private sector.”
“On 30 July 2020, just a few months ago, the IRDA was commenced and incorporates the relevant provisions from the Bankruptcy Act and the Companies Act, into a single new statute. The Act also builds on the earlier phases of amendments that I have outlined. Our legislation provides the best features of the world's leading regime. It also seeks to strike a balance between the different competing stakeholders' interest, enabling companies to restructure successfully whilst at the same time, protecting creditors' rights. The touch stone of any Singapore restructuring remains the support of its creditors. In any insolvency, it is the creditors who own the company. A recent restructuring example that I would like to highlight to Members is Swee Hong Limited, a civil engineering contracting firm. In February 2020, the High Court granted Swee Hong an order to give super-priority status to over US$2 million worth of rescue financing. This allowed them to continue the business whilst it attempted to restructure. Seven months later, the proposed scheme of arrangement was approved by more than 90% in number of creditors, representing more than 80% in value, higher than the requisite statutory threshold, and if sanctioned by the Court, the restructuring would allow Swee Hong which was insolvent to continue as a going concern and avert a winding up. This in turn helps to save the business, keeps jobs not only for Swee Hong but also for many of its counterparties and subcontractors. Whilst the IRDA has facilitated positive results such as Swee Hong, it was not designed with the effects of a global pandemic like COVID-19 in mind. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have forecasted global business insolvencies to increase by 35% in 2021.”
“It is therefore critical that the distressed companies are provided with the necessary statutory framework to either restructure, or to wind down their operations in an effective and orderly manner. An efficient and streamlined framework will reduce the complexity and hence the cost and time of doing so for debtors and stakeholders alike. The purpose of this Bill is to create such a framework, tailored for the micro and small companies. We already have in place, Sir, a progressive and modern insolvency framework in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act or IRDA. This is the fruit of a multi-phase process that has taken about five years to put in place to strengthen our insolvency framework and enhance our position as an international centre for debt restructuring. In 2015, the then-Bankruptcy Act was amended. This introduced a new differentiated discharge framework that promotes a more rehabilitative regime by giving bankrupts clear targets to work towards so that they can become eligible for discharge. It puts in place also, a requirement for institutional creditors to appoint private trustees in bankruptcy when making a bankruptcy application. This encouraged greater engagement by such creditors and also drives creditors to exercise greater financial prudence when granting credit. In 2017, we introduced ground-breaking amendments to the Companies Act to strengthen the framework even further, introducing super-priority for rescue financing, encouraging fresh funds to assist the debtor through the restructuring proceedings. We enhanced moratoriums to provide breathing room for distressed companies and also put in place pre-packaged schemes of arrangement to fast-track pre-negotiated, pre-agreed restructuring plans.”
“In unforeseeable circumstances that are no fault of their own, many businesses will be worried about cutting costs, making ends meet, dealing with impending litigation or maybe insolvency. And this is a time when we would much rather help those businesses to adapt, to find a new paradigm, find a new operating assumption, to recover, get their businesses back on track and save jobs. Sir, I will now move on to deal with the IRDA Bill, and the Simplified Insolvency Programme, that it introduces. In order to fully appreciate how this Bill will help financially distressed companies, assist in saving jobs and strengthen the macro environment for businesses, let me first explain why an effective insolvency framework is important. for the economy. A successful restructuring allows a company to continue as a going concern. This results in a better outcome for employees, creditors and investors as a whole, by saving jobs and the businesses and giving a lifeline. Where the business of a company, on the other hand, is no longer viable, then an effective liquidation process realises the company's remaining assets in an orderly fashion and distributes the proceeds to creditors and stakeholders through an effective and transparent collective enforcement mechanism. This enables the reallocation of resources to other more productive business activities. It also reduces the number of zombie companies that might exist, those that are unable to generate enough profits to cover their debt-servicing costs and other obligations while the value of their assets dissipates over time. An efficient liquidation process will reduce the costs of liquidation, and maximise returns to the company's stakeholders.”
“There are fears the Framework could be used by parties as a convenient escape route to terminate the contracts that some parties might set unreasonable or unacceptable re-negotiation terms to force a termination. But Members ought to note that, first, this is designed to allow parties to be as flexible as possible in the context of their own contractual environment. And I would urge the parties to work together to look this productivey. And second, whilst we cannot say for everyone and over-generalise, we believe that the vast majority of people and businesses affected by this will act commercially and rationally. No rational tenant will choose to exit a tenancy unnecessarily because there is a cost to moving, there is a relocation cost, and moving away from its existing pool of customers. Those who choose to exit will probably generally believe that they have no choice given their business and operating assumptions, and the cost. But even in those cases, the landlords can engage in discussions to try and understand their difficulties and find a solution, again, using one of the different options that I have outlined earlier. In the situation where there might be a number of parties who seek to attempt to misuse this system, the Assessor system is a check and safeguard against this. The Assessor's responsibility is primarily to ensure a fair and just outcome. If the facts show, for example, that a tenant is, in reality doing well, the Assessor can take that into account, make the appropriate directions, including additional compensation that can be paid on termination. Sir, if we are dogmatic and overly cautious in our approach, we will see our businesses continue to struggle and flounder.”
“Let me also call on Members to bear in mind the impact of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on fellow Singaporeans and our business community. We have never before seen such deep and significant impact in any of our past crises, whether it is the Asian Financial Crisis, the Global Financial Crisis, or SARS. Often in those cases, we did not intervene to this extent. I therefore emphasise again that this is an extraordinary measure that the Government has taken carefully as a reaction to a once in a lifetime event of unprecedented proportions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Framework will serve as a necessary complement to support the measures that have already been put out. It would ensure that the cash infusions are not drained away because businesses are stuck in their contracts. It will help substantially impacted businesses avoid protracted disputes, re-strategise and, in Deputy Prime Minister's words, to rejuvenate. I understand there may be concerns about knock-on terminations, chain reactions and so on. But let me ask Members to consider the facts. The businesses that we have scoped this to cover are those that had been substantially impacted. Even without this relief, they face a likelihood of being insolvent, at the minimum, substantial litigation. The contract may not survive anyway. The nature of the consequences, even if one qualifies, will be calibrated and modelled on established legal principles as I have outlined, and outstanding debts will remain payable. The duration of this relief is limited and in consequences following the termination, carefully scoped, to ensure as far as possible, fairness for both parties.”
“The Rule of Law, which includes respecting the sanctity of contracts, is a foundational value for Singapore. We worked with legal experts, considered it carefully, and consulted industry stakeholders such as Singapore Business Federation, the Singapore Nightlife Business Association and other businesses and trade associations, landlords, tenants and banks. This was not a step that was taken lightly. Ultimately, this Framework protects our economy in the longer term by helping businesses overcome barriers to choosing the more economically productive route. It helps the market to correct and operate as it should. It is also not a concept alien to both the common and civil law traditions where we see that there is a recognition of fairness and that a fundamental unforeseeable change in circumstances that impacts the performance of a contract can justify a change in the contractual environment. This Framework therefore adheres to the principles for intervention by the state in contracts, as set out by Minister Shanmugam in Parliament, when this Act was first introduced in April. First, that the freedom of contract has never been absolute, and even today, there are mandatory laws that can invalidate or override terms of a contract. The law of frustration being one example. Second, a state may intervene in contracts, to fulfill its duty to safeguard vital interests of its people, where a significant part of the economy is at stake, and strict enforcement of a particular contractual rights could lead to damage to the whole economy. In these circumstances, a state may intervene, with reasonable steps of limited duration, to safeguard the economic structure for the common good.”
“The revenue earned is still not enough for it to fully pay its hire-purchase instalments. At the same time, the finance companies are threatening to re-possess the vans. And without the vans, obviously, even the new delivery business will fall. The livelihoods of these hirers depend on the equipment and the vehicles that they hire-purchase. Their situation is precarious. They are often the sole breadwinners with families who do depend on them to survive and termination in these cases is not really an option for such businesses. They cannot just, say, give up the vehicle and go back to where it was because that is the tools of their trade. These businesses will benefit from the SRS which will allow them to pay outstanding arrears from a specified period in equal instalments every month for up to 18 months. Interest will remain payable on the outstanding arrears, capped at 5% per annum. And if a party fails to pay any instalment as required by the Schedule, or terminates or repudiates the contract during the period of the repayment period, otherwise they are still offsetting the instalments due, then all outstanding arrears will become immediately repayable. Sir, this Framework will not affect contracts terminated prior to 2 November 2020, yesterday, when the Bill was read for the first time. However, to ensure the smooth implementation and delivery of the relief to the intended beneficiaries, the relief under the Framework applies to contracts that are terminated from 2 November 2020 when the Bill was introduced. This will prevent a rush of terminations, leading to uncertainty in the market. This Framework, Sir, is an exceptional, targeted intervention, for extraordinary times.”
“The landlords that we have in mind for this are those who have invested their small property and rely on the rental for a good proportion of their annual income. And if the tenant were to terminate the lease in this case, the landlords may be put into a situation of hardship. Division 3 of Part 10 of the Bill therefore provides that such landlords are entitled to additional compensation if the lease is terminated. The compensation amount will be determined by an Assessor in accordance with the criteria that is set out in the prescribed subsidiary legislation. To clarify, this is not an assessment of damages. It will not be done as an assessment of damages in the usual sense. And the small landlord might not be awarded the full damages that he might have had had he taken the matter to Court. But he would have to establish that on a different property value. However, given that a tenant who qualifies to invoke this framework is likely to be suffering badly because of COVID-19, there is a chance that the landlord could not have recovered the full amount of damages from the tenant anyway. So, bear that in mind in the context of what I have also outlined in the preamble earlier. Sir, the second specific regime relates to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements, and leases, for commercial equipment. As an alternative option to termination, the Bill also provides a Statutory Repayment Scheme or SRS specifically for these types of contracts. This is set out in Division 4 of Part 10 of the Bill. Let me explain why this specific regime is necessary. My Ministry received petitions from several hirers. Once was a business that hire-purchased mini vans to ferry tourists and corporate clients. Its usual business had ground to a halt. It is now using the vans to do deliveries.”
“We hope that parties will use this four-week period productively and – I would say – openly and constructively to engage with each other in good faith to work out suitable and mutually acceptable arrangements for the longer term, for the balance period of a contract. If the parties are able to successfully re-negotiate that position, then the matter ends there. Third, however, if the re-negotiation is unsuccessful, the contract will be terminated but with the default consequences set out in Part 4 of the Second Schedule of the Bill. These default consequences generally hold the terminating party to all accrued obligations. Generally, all prospective obligations are discharged. Members can refer to my Handouts 3A to 3D which will illustrate the default consequences that would generally apply for each type of Specified Contract. [Please refer to Annex 4.] Fourth, either Party can apply for an Assessor's determination if there is any disagreement on the application of the Framework. So, if after you have terminated or you are trying to work out the terms and you are unable to settle on the consequences of termination, for instance, then the parties may apply to an Assessor and the Assessor's determination in those cases will be final, binding and non-appealable. If there is subsequently a dispute over the performance of any obligations that a party may remain liable for after the termination, that dispute can be resolved in the Courts. Sir, I now come to two specific regimes catered for under the Framework. The first relates to an exception for small landlords who might face hardship. To invoke this exception, the landlord must meet certain eligibility criteria, which will also be prescribed.”
“Specialist Assessors will comprise judges and senior judicial officers appointed to the panel by the Chief Justice. This is needed because of the potential complexity, seriousness and, of course, sensitivity of the disputes, which may relate to contracts of national interest. Sir, I now come to how the process will work. If Members refer to Handout 2, I have diagrammatically summarised the process, but I will take Members through key aspects. [Please refer to Annex 3.] First, this relief will be available for a period of six weeks from the commencement date of this Bill if it is passed. As I explained earlier, we do not intervene lightly and when we do so, it will be in a limited way. The relief is therefore for a short window to prevent a wider disruption. This is in line with the desired outcome, also, of a quick resolution to the matter. Parties really ought not drag it out and there should not be uncertainty for a prolonged period as to whether a counterparty might end up wanting to terminate the contract or not. Thus, to invoke this relief, the business which is defined as Party A in the Bill must serve a Notice of Negotiation on Party B, the counterparty, within a six-week window. Once the notice is served, there will be a moratorium on legal and enforcement actions for any non-performance of obligations arising after the date of service of the notice. Second, after the Notice of Negotiation is served, there will be a mandatory four-week period for the parties to negotiate, during which no application can be made to the assessor.”
“Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule defines a Specified Contract to include contracts that are substantially in the nature of a specified contract. Let me explain this. Not all contracts are neatly defined into one category or another necessarily and there are often contracts that are mixed or multi-faceted. For example, a contract for the supply of goods, which is in the whitelist, may well have an element of carriage of goods, which is in the blacklist. If it is substantially in the nature of the contract for the supply of goods in the whitelist, it will still be covered by the Framework. A contract of national interest is defined in section 41(1) of the Bill. The contract must be certified as a contract of national interests by the relevant Portfolio Minister. It must be one where termination is likely to affect the provision of essential service or the ability of a public body to carry out its function – that is the definition. A list of specified essential services is set out in Part 2 of the Second Schedule and includes water supply services, security emergency services, broadband Internet services and so on – I think Members understand. Special considerations therefore apply to contracts of national interest. An abrupt termination of these contracts can adversely affect national interest. Hence, a special regime will apply. This is set out in Division 6 of Part 10 of the Bill. In this context, for these contracts, there will be no right to terminate contracts of national interest. Instead, there will be a right to re-negotiate the pricing under the contract. If no solution can be found by that negotiation, the party seeking relief can apply to a Specialist Assessor to adjust the price of the contract.”
“They will extend credit relief measures beyond 2020 to support individuals and SMEs who need more time to resume full loan repayments. These measures include partial deferments of principal repayments until March or June 2021, depending on the sector that the SME is in. In addition, borrowers that require additional help can approach the banks or finance company for more customised restructuring arrangements. In that respect, banks and finance companies have recently developed a protocol to facilitate restructuring of loans across different lenders to reduce the need for borrowers to go to the Courts for resolution. The fourth category comprises rental agreements for commercial equipment, including commercial vehicles such as taxis and private hire cars. For the avoidance of doubt, a business may invoke this Framework in respect of a contract even if the Government is a party to the contract as long as the contract is a Specified Contract. Certain contracts will be excluded from the Specified Contracts for various reasons. We have set them out in paragraph 2 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule. Again, Members can look at Handout 1 for a summary of these exclusions. For example, contracts with consumers and employees are excluded. These groups deserve greater protection. Construction and supply contracts will be excluded. They are dealt with under a customised set of measures for the construction industry. Minister Desmond Lee will be speaking on this later. Also excluded are contracts that are uniquely interconnected with other contracts, where the termination may have unforeseen knock-on effects. Finally, contracts that are governed by specific international conventions or regimes will also be excluded.”
“These are commercial contracts that tend to have substantial prospective obligations, which attract substantial damages or penalties. As such, these are the types of contracts that a business will likely want to re-negotiate and restructure. So, the legislation covers four main types of contracts for now. Section 78 of the Bill empowers the Minister to amend the Schedule of Specified Contracts. This power is needed so that there is flexibility, if necessary, to respond to evolving situations. Sir, the four types of contracts are specified in Part 1 of the Bill and Members may refer to Handout 1, which I have left on your seats and which sets up a summary of the different categories of contracts to which it applies. [Please refer to Annex 2.] I will just very quickly take Members through them. The first type of specific contract are leases or licences for non-residential property in Singapore that have terms not exceeding five years. In general, for these contracts, these are significant cost component for many businesses and the SCCCI's survey, which I cited earlier, found that the topmost need amongst respondents was a reduction or a waiver of rent. So, that is the first type. The second relates to contracts for the supply of goods or services and these contracts are often at the centre of a business' operations. The third category of Specified Contracts comprises hire purchase and conditional sale agreements for commercial equipment, including commercial vehicles. As with "COVID 1", we have excluded from this category, hire purchase agreements entered into with MAS-regulated banks or finance companies. That is because MAS has worked with the financial industry to provide corresponding substantive relief.”
“Indeed, Sir, it should not be difficult to identify a business that has been badly affected by COVID-19 and that is what we have done – to set an objective financial threshold. So, in the second limb of Part 3 of the Second Schedule of the Bill, eligibility will be determined by the fall in revenue it has suffered over a prescribed period compared to a relevant comparable period prior to the pandemic. The fall in revenue criteria will be suitably substantial and pegged to a level such that a business that needs it will clearly have been significantly and adversely affected by the pandemic. This, in our view, will strike an appropriate balance between sufficiently showing that there has been substantial impact due to COVID-19 and helping businesses that need an efficient and accessible remedy. We have been and we remain in consultation with the industry on the precise criteria and we will announce the criteria once it is finalised. This will be set out in subsidiary legislation. Next, which contracts would this apply to? First, the contract that can benefit from this Framework must meet the following criteria. First, it must be governed by Singapore law and at least one of the parties must have a place of business in Singapore. Second, it must have been entered into before 25 March 2020. The reason for this date is consistent with, and also explained when, we passed "COVID 1". It is the day immediately after MOH significantly stepped up COVID-19 related restrictions and if parties entered into contracts on or after 25 March with knowledge of the changed circumstances, then these circumstances are no longer unforeseeable, which is really the raison d'etre behind these amendments. Next, the Framework will only cover the prescribed contracts.”
“We also intend to cover individuals who enter into contracts for a business or trade purposes, such as freelancers or private hire car drivers and also non-profit organisations. Second, how do we identify those businesses that have been impacted by COVID-19? Sir, as Members know, even in a non-recession year, a proportion of our businesses will suffer a fall in business revenue. That is just the vicissitudes of business. This Framework is not intended to help those businesses who might see a cyclical drop or who maybe, in a scenario where the economy has been doing well, they see a drop in their revenue. That is not the target audience of this Bill. It will be, however, onerous and impractical to expect a struggling business – especially the very small ones, including the micro businesses – to have to go through a detailed analysis of its own business performance and pull out the factors that would justify its qualification for this relief. The effects of COVID-19 have been wide ranging, affecting businesses in many direct ways but also in many indirect ways, including disrupting supply chains, weakening consumer demand. Some may experience one or more of these and it may be uneven as well. It will not be feasible to show all the various factors that have led to the revenue fall and further, to prove that these are caused by COVID-19. Even if it were possible, it would be difficult and it would be a protracted, long-drawn forensic investigation into each measure and then we get into an argument over whether this factor has got how much proportion and what weightage and whether there has been mitigation. By the time that process is complete, it will likely be that the business will be in deeper trouble and might well be beyond saving at that juncture.”
“We want to minimise uncertainty and to help parties realign their contracts efficiently, fairly and, also importantly, quickly. The sooner we are able to do this, the more we are able to deal with uncertainty in the market. The Framework will therefore set out clearly who it applies to, what contracts it covers and what contracts it does not cover, what the default consequences of termination would be if parties were unable to reach an agreement after re-negotiation. So, it sets out a framework and a fairly clear formula as to what would be considered, should termination take place. Part 4 of the Second Schedule of the Bill spells out the default consequences that will apply to a contract covered by this Framework. The Framework is designed to encourage and give the tools to the parties to work out a negotiated resolution for termination on their own as much as possible. That is the fourth objective – for parties to work together as far as possible. I will now go into the key features of the Framework to explain to Members how this is designed to work. First, let me focus on whom this Framework would help. The first limb of Part 3 of the Second Schedule of the Bill states that the first criteria will be by revenue. As I have mentioned earlier, our primary objective is to help the smaller and the micro businesses – give them a bit of a leverage to find some basis to re-negotiate. They have less negotiating power and are most in need of this assistance. We aim to extend help to the spectrum of businesses that fall within the criteria. We will set a revenue threshold which will exclude the larger enterprises that ought to have the sophistication and wherewithal to engage in negotiations with their own counterparties even without the assistance of this Framework.”
“This right to terminate will shift the calculus for the party on the other side – to give it a nudge, to see if a re-negotiated contract would be a better alternative to either termination or litigation. Often, termination is not the answer for both parties. For a tenant, for example, terminating the lease will come with costs, disruption, the impact of relocation and the risk of losing customers. For the landlord, insisting on strict contract rights in some cases might mean a tenant in serious unrecoverable debt, or a vacant unit or, very often, both. It may be better to temporarily accept slightly reduced rent or find some other mutually workable formula to help the tenant survive and stay on in the tenancy rather than to leave the premises vacant and to incur the cost of finding a new tenant. There are a myriad ways to work things out, including shifting to a Gross Turnover or GTO model, for example, for rent or taking a lower rent in the initial period and then extending the term of the lease with a higher rent built in at the tail end – a number of different options that parties can look into. But ultimately, both sides must work out an arrangement that works well for them. The second objective is to keep this relief narrow and limited so as not to unduly trample upon the sanctity of contracts. That is a key and fundamental principle that undergirds our legal system. In line with the Government's policy of respecting the sanctity of contracts, this Framework will therefore be limited in scope in terms of who it helps and what it will do. I will elaborate on that in a moment. The third objective is to ensure that the Framework is accessible, efficient and it has to be relatively simple to invoke and to use.”
“In redesigning the Framework, I would like to outline to the House three key objectives that we have kept to, in designing this framework. The first is to sort out the imbalance to give parties the best chance to come together to renegotiate for themselves what is just and fair in their own context. And we believe that contractual issues between two parties are best sorted out between the parties themselves as far as possible. They know their contract best. They know their operating assumptions and their cost positions and they know what innovations could be made to their specific contract, to help them get over this period. The Framework therefore seeks to solve this issue by giving the affected business the right to demand renegotiation from the counterparty, as a start. And second, unless agreement is reached, an eligible business will have the right to terminate the contract on a no-fault basis without having to pay substantial damages in penalties for compensation in the manner that I had outlined earlier – for example, in relation to the unexpired balance period of the tenancy. The first aspect is adapted from concepts found in some major civil law countries. In these civil law jurisdictions, the right of renegotiation is built into the law. For example, in France, in Germany and in Japan, parties significantly affected by an intervening event can invoke the right to renegotiate the contract. And if it is not successful, they can then apply to court to vary the contract. The second aspect, the "no fault" termination is drawn from principles of frustration. It extinguishes all prospective obligations but the parties remain liable for all accrued obligations. These consequences in respect of the accrued obligations also apply as a default in this Framework.”
“COVID-19 is unprecedented. So, it is also difficult to predict how the Courts may rule in one case to another. For a business already bleeding, the prospect of going to Court to argue these points can be daunting and it is also unproductive for parties to spend the resources in this fashion. It is worth noting that these problems with relying on the law of frustration, were highlighted in an op-ed by former Justice VK Rajah and Dean of SMU Law School, Goh Yihan, published in May. In the op-ed, the authors recognised the need for new COVID-19 legislation to overcome these problems. They suggested borrowing aspects of contract law from civil law jurisdictions, which allow adjustment of contractual obligations where there is a supervening event. What the above makes clear, Sir, is that if left to the market alone, the necessary realignment of contracts on the new paradigm, in many cases, will probably not happen. That is why we have considered intervening. My Ministry has received requests from businesses seeking fairly substantial and substantive interventions. For example, they have asked the Government to consider requiring the mandatory reduction in arrears. That means you go back to the arrears and you just forgive the arrears. Or second, just having a different way to calculate future rent. We have studied these proposals carefully. What we think would work best is a more measured approach, which I will now go into. The Re-Align Framework seeks to help small businesses substantially impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. These are businesses that have been faring badly, little leverage and so on. It provides a framework to renegotiate, failing which the contract may be terminated on a no-fault basis in a manner that gives a fair and just outcome.”
“It is going to be very difficult for a small business – one of maybe several that the counterparty is dealing with, to go back and seek a renegotiation of terms. Here, I think it would be useful to reiterate what Minister Shanmugam had said when this Act was first enacted in April; in these critical times, everyone should take a collective approach. This is not the time to be circling the wagons, taking all that a business can give until they go bust, in the name of exacting contractual rights. Sir, second – a business who is unable to renegotiate a contract, may then want to terminate it. But they are often deterred by the risk of having to pay substantial damages for terminating the contracts early. Again, in the manner which I have outlined earlier. Third, the existing recourse that may be available in such situations, may be out of reach and difficult for these struggling businesses to access. Depending on the facts of the case, some businesses may already have recourse to the doctrine of frustration in Singapore law to discharge their contracts. Under this doctrine, parties are discharged from further performance of their contractual obligations where it can be shown that there is an unforeseeable, supervening event that occurs after the contract was entered into. The event is not the fault of either party and it renders the performance of the obligations fundamentally different from what the parties had envisaged. COVID-19 is clearly an unforeseeable event. However, as I am sure Members here will know, if there is a dispute, businesses will end up spending precious resources: time, effort, money in Court. The outcome could also be uncertain and maybe also uneven in the context of different businesses, depending on the facts of each case.”
“The premises themselves have no kitchen and the nightclub's workers have returned to their home countries. Its manager cannot today enter Singapore to come back to work. The owner is fearful of terminating the lease due to the termination penalties that I sketched out earlier, but with each passing month, the dilemma I think is clear to see. For suppliers of goods and services, their costs may have skyrocketed and the price that they are contractually bound to pay for the goods and services no longer covers their cost. Sir, in the free market and with freedom to contract, there will be risk and the risk will not be different from what I have outlined earlier; change in market conditions, higher prices, drop in supply – all of which would affect the ability to deliver services at the contracted price. But the impact of COVID-19 has also been sudden, widespread and deep. And whilst some large businesses might be able to absorb the shocks like this, for many businesses, it will be unsustainable. Our first prong, the Re-Align Framework, therefore deals with contracts entered into when the world was a very different place. The problem, Sir, that needs to be addressed would be as follows. In relation to businesses trying to meet obligations in a very different circumstances, the contracts in this scenario will need to be realigned. It will not happen on its own for a number of reasons. First, counterparties may refuse to renegotiate the terms of the contracts. This is now a familiar story and I have outlined some examples. This also commonly arises with the smaller businesses, with less leverage and negotiating power. So, you take the examples that I have highlighted earlier.”
“Second, the IRDA Bill will put in place amendments to introduce a Simplified Insolvency Programme, SIP. This will make it easier for small businesses to restructure their debts, liquidate, and also distribute their assets in an orderly, effective and efficient manner. The two measures are separate but complementary, as Members will see. I will take the House first through the Re-Align Framework and subsequently the Simplified Insolvency Programme. Sir, first, let me briefly explain the need for intervention. I wish to emphasise that this is not a step that has been taken lightly and we have very carefully considered both the implications as well as the scope of this framework. The nub of the problem for the mall tenant that I took the Members through is that he has entered into a contract pre-COVID-19. The business environment and assumptions that he had then is very different today. Now, when all these assumptions are different, he is bound to a set of obligations that were designed at a very different time. And while business is not stagnant, no one could have predicted that the environment would have changed so dramatically, drastically and fundamentally in such a short period of time. For the businesses that are not permitted to resume operations, which I have sketched out earlier, the situation would be even more dire. Just to give one example of many, I will share an appeal we received from a nightclub owner. He had been prohibited from operating since March this year, as is the case for the nightlife industry as a whole. Its lease continues to run due to expire only in March 2021. Pivoting to another business model like F&B is possible, but will be difficult.”
“If they cannot get the counterparties to work with them and they are looking at meeting pre-COVID-19 obligations in a COVID-19 economy, then they are heading inevitably for at least a significantly curtailed cashflow, possibly insolvency, and very likely, litigation. This latter scenario is not in the interest of parties nor indeed in the interest of the greater overall good of our economy. If these businesses close down, they will likely be under a mountain of debt. That is not good for the counterparty either because it is unlikely to be able to recover the full debt. Jobs will be lost, while businesses and creditors tussle over in insolvency or litigation proceedings in Court. The fallout is likely to be substantial. The number of SMEs who have experienced a significant revenue fall on a rough estimate is about five times what it was in 2019. And we can expect the number of insolvency proceedings to substantially increase correspondingly. Hence, Sir, we have a two-pronged solution. First, to ensure that these businesses do not get stuck in a limbo in a situation where they can neither find it feasible to continue in the present trajectory on the current cash flow and assumptions, nor to terminate and then bear the brunt of the financial impact of that termination. So, that is the first prong. The second is to have a situation where resources are instead quickly unlocked for more productive ventures in the new operating environment. That is the broad objective of these two Bills. In this respect, Part 10 of the Bill puts in place a realignment framework or we call it the Re-Align Framework for parties to have new alignment. It will help businesses to realign the contractual obligations to the new business reality.”
“The tenant approached the landlord, hoping to negotiate a temporary reduction until the situation improves. If he could only get a rent reduction for a period of time, he could also free up some resources to transform his business or do what was needed to survive. However, in this particular case, the landlord refused to entertain discussions. On the other hand, if the tenant chooses to terminate the contract before his lease ends next year, over a 12-month period, he will have to pay substantial damages for termination. And that is calculated on the unexpired portion of the lease period. He is therefore stuck in this position and continues to bleed. If nothing changes, it is likely that he will breach the tenancy. If the arrears or compensation for termination is not paid, parties could then end up litigation and the tenant might then end up insolvent. Sir, this case is not unique and we receive feedback from many businesses asking for assistance in a similar fashion. That said, we are at the same time also aware of many enlightened landlords. Many of them have proactively approached the tenants to offer relief or vary the terms of the tenancy. They have renegotiated them, on new terms to help the tenants at least tide over this period of time. However, for the many businesses suffering from the lasting economic effects of COVID-19, it really is a simple question in some ways. Will their counterparties work with them to help them adapt to their business models, restructure the arrangements, possibly downscale or pivot to a different area?”
“And close to 40% said they would definitely, permanently shut down That is why the Government has rolled out specific, targeted support for the worst hit areas. For nightlife businesses, MTI will be providing an assistance package for them to transit out and pivot to new areas should they choose, and will be announcing more details soon. For the tourism, aviation, arts and sports sectors, the relevant Ministries have, to-date, announced specific support packages for them as well, including grants to help with them with the immediate cash flow difficulties. Sir, our broad objective in this Bill is this: as we move from resuscitate to rejuvenate, a key priority is to ensure that businesses can look ahead and focus on recovery. They should be reallocating resources to more productive uses, rather than being stuck in a prolonged, painful and unproductive struggle, when circumstances, business assumptions have clearly changed. However, some businesses, particularly the smaller ones, face obstacles in doing so. And let me just share an example to illustrate the point with Members. A tenant wrote to MinLaw that his tenant's lease was for a period ending in October 2021. The rent was approximately $9,000 per month, something that he entered into before COVID-19. Safe management barriers have been erected near his shops. As a result, footfall has dropped drastically. The tenant's earnings dropped to only $3,000 and even after the Phase Two reopening, the pick-up in footfall has been slow, and clearly, unlikely to return to pre-COVID levels. He clearly cannot continue at this rate until October 2021. And I think this is a story which many of the Members in this House would find some resonance with.”
“This affects roughly over 20,000 businesses in the tourism, hospitality, conventions, exhibitions sectors – in those sectors alone, 20,000. This will also affect the F&B and retail stores and transportation workers that rely on tourist spending. Second, foot traffic remains reduced, especially in the CBD areas where many still continue to work from home. Third, retail and F&B outlets must comply with mandatory safe management measures. This has reduced their operating capacities. Fourth, some businesses are not even permitted to operate at all and this may continue for quite a while. Take for example many of the 1,300 nightlife establishments, which employ around 20,000 workers. Those have not been able to operate even now. Many businesses will be forced to operate in unfavourable conditions in the COVID scenario and in fact, including the immediate post-COVID period for an extended period of time. In a survey by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry or SCCCI from mid-June to early August this year, they found that half of the respondents said that COVID-19 had a major impact on their business models. Respondents had experienced a substantial average decline in revenue compared to 2019, without a proportionate decline in business costs. Over 80% of them do not expect business to recover to pre-COVID-19 levels in the next year. And 58% indicated that they were worried that they will not be able to generate sufficient revenues to even cover their costs. Nightlife businesses especially, are in a difficult situation. According to a poll by the Singapore Nightlife Business Association, over 90% of respondents said there was at least a 50% chance of them wholly shutting down, if they did not reopen soon.”
“The moratorium holds enforcement actions at bay, as Members know, but it does not stop debts from being incurred as businesses continue and as they continue to perform on contracts entered into. As announced on 12 October, we have extended the moratorium for a short period of time. Save for construction and supply contracts, options and sale and purchase agreements with developers and event and tourism-related contracts, which will be extended for longer periods, the moratorium for the other types of contracts are extended only for a month and will expire on 19 November. The extension for these contracts was for one month, in anticipation of the present Bill being introduced at this sitting. Sir, with Government measures tapering off, where are businesses today? Businesses have been feeling the impact of COVID-19 since February and in some cases, possibly before that. In April and May, the circuit breaker was implemented. This was necessary to break the chain of COVID-19 infections and transmissions and to flatten the curve. But this was an especially painful period for businesses. Many lost two months of revenue and the impact continues to be felt even some time after the end of circuit breaker. Due to the impact on their cash-flow, many businesses started accumulating arrears. Through the Phase Two re-opening, the Government has been carefully monitoring the evolving situation, to see if further relief is needed. Members would know that there has been a modest recovery – uneven and modest. However, COVID-19 restrictions cannot be completely lifted as we move cautiously into Phase Three, as announced by the Multi-Ministry Task Force about two weeks ago. This would continue to significantly impact some businesses. First, travel restrictions are still stringent.”
“Over 8,000 Notifications for Relief were filed and they were filed to invoke the moratorium from April this year. "COVID 1" also raised the debt thresholds for bankruptcy and insolvency to help people avert those consequences as far as possible. Bankruptcy and insolvency applications have consequently dropped significantly, to half or less compared to the first quarter of 2020, since the measure was introduced. June saw the introduction of "COVID 2" to give SME tenants immediate rental relief. The relief has worked as intended and in September I updated Parliament on the impact of these measures. They have been a crucial lifeline for many businesses. One beneficiary of the Act likened it to a parachute, stopping the free fall, helping affected businesses land safely – so still dropping, but with some measure of resistance. This has softened the impact of the pandemic on the economy as a whole and prevented a precipitous increase in defaults on contracts, insolvencies, litigation and consequently, loss of jobs. However, we cannot allow or afford for these relief measures to continue, indefinitely. We will risk sustaining businesses that are no longer viable. It would trap, and lock away, precious economic capacity, such as workers or property and assets. This, in the longer term would be damaging for our economy. Deputy Prime Minister Heng said as well in October, that for the economy to recover, support must evolve and it must go from resuscitate, to rejuvenate. That is the key principle behind why this Bill has been proposed. The existing Government support will eventually have to taper off. The "COVID 1" moratorium should also not be prolonged.”
“When we pause to reflect and compare our lives and our daily routines now, compared to where it was eight to nine months ago, we see what a drastically different world we live in today. We have managed to do quite well in terms of treating the sick and keeping the number of deaths low. However, as an international trade hub, we cannot escape the global economic disruption caused by COVID-19 restrictions and border restrictions around the world. And indeed, for Singapore, we are in our worst recession since Independence. Our GDP is forecast to shrink by 5% to 7% this year. MAS predicts that Singapore's recovery will be more protracted than in previous crises and uneven across different sectors. In a corresponding manner, unprecedented Government relief has been provided, to help businesses weather the storm and also to protect jobs. Around S$100 billion has been committed in support measures to deal with COVID-19 or assist people in the face of the impact of COVID-19. This amounts to about 20% of our GDP. Just last month, in Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister Heng observed that the relief measures have helped avert a 5.6% loss in real GDP this year and they would have helped save an average of 155,000 jobs each year, in 2020 and 2021. That shows the extent of the measures that the Government has so far introduced. Measures were also enacted, to deal with the contractual aspect, as Members would know. Let me just briefly recap them. In April this year, my Ministry enacted a temporary legal circuit breaker. We called that "COVID 1". We did that practically on the eve of the circuit breaker in April this year. "COVID 1" provided for a moratorium on legal and enforcement actions, for prescribed contracts.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I will first speak on the new Part 10 introduced by this Bill and subsequently on the IRDA Bill. Minister Desmond Lee will speak on the relief for the construction and property sectors, found in the new Parts 11 to 13 introduced by this Bill. Finally, Minister Lawrence Wong will speak on the amendments relating to the property tax rebate and rental relief. Mr Speaker, over the past year, since the pandemic began, several major temporary measures have been passed by Parliament to provide relief for businesses and also to protect our economy and fundamentally, jobs. Today, new temporary measures have been tabled before this House. Before I take the House through the key features, allow me first to explain why there is a need for these further measures and the broad architecture of the proposed amendments as they are tabled in the Bill. Sir, after almost a year, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage on around the world. The global toll stands today, at about 45 million infections and over 1.1 million deaths, across over 160 countries. 21 October – less than two weeks ago – saw the highest total infections reported in a single day across the world. A second wave of COVID-19 is surging across Europe. France, Germany and most recently, the UK, are now in lockdown. Infections in the US are trending toward a third peak, and just last week, saw a record for the highest number of cases in a single day. COVID-19 is staggering in scale and unprecedented in the way, it has affected almost every aspect of our daily lives. The way we work, the way we go to school, the way we transact business and even the way we greet each other – we no longer shake hands!”
“And we had extensive consultations with various domestic agencies and also stakeholders to ensure that we are ready with it and that upon accession to the Convention, we will be able to discharge the obligations. We have since done so and we are satisfied that we can adopt this regime. The new regime will modernise and streamline the authentication process and, as I mentioned at the outset, facilitate the use of documents for cross-border purposes, saving time and expense for parties, both ways. Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I beg to move.”
“SAL will establish very clear procedures for every request for an apostille and is also building up a database of all the public specimen signatures of public officers who are authorised to sign public documents so that there can also be ease of verification. But that database is being built. I should just caution to add to Mr Ng's point that such an apostillisation, like legalisation, does not look at the underlying veracity of the contents. So, the truth or falsity of the contents of the document is not something that is certified by the apostillisation. Mr Ng asked about offences for apostille fraud under the Bill. It is a serious offence and I agree with Mr Ng, but there is an existing framework now in the Penal Code to deal with this. So, to Mr Ng's example of an academic certificate that is brought fraudulently or dishonestly, if one applies for an apostille on the basis of a false underlying document, then an offence under section 471 read with section 466 of the Penal Code, which is punishable with a term of imprisonment, that person can be charged under those offences. It is thus not necessary to create a separate set of offences to support only the apostillisation process. Mr Ng would also note that one of the grounds on which the Competent Authority might refuse to issue an apostille is if there are, itself reasonable grounds, either on the face of it or upon review that the document has been falsified or is otherwise forged. Sir, on Mr Murali Pillai's point on the Convention and acceding to the Convention, we have taken some time to study it, as I mentioned at the outset, to look at the details and also assess the merits.”
“So, whatever it starts off with, $10. And Members will note that this is the same fee as charged by MFA. So, to Mr Tan's query earlier, be aswe have sured. The fee is being charged on the basis that SAL adopts the same manual, over-the-counter authentication services. I just want to note that private documents have to be notarised first before being authenticated by SAL. That is the process today anyway, and the apostille fee does not include the cost of such notarisation fees, if applicable. Similar to other fees for services, SAL, like any other agencies, will regularly look at its fee structure and will conduct the review at some stage as to whether the fee structure is appropriate for the kind of services that it is designed to support. Mr Ng asked whether if you have one element of the origin of a foreign public document not being satisfied, whether that would vitiate the entire document. Clause 7 provides for three requirements and the three requirements go together to establish the veracity of that document that is being apostillised. So, if any one element is missing, then a document will not be able to be established. So, Mr Ng would note that, in particular, if the authenticity of the signature cannot be established, then that one fundamental aspect of the document's veracity is cast into doubt. As to Mr Ng's about whether SAL will verify a document that complies with content and format requirements to qualify for a public document, for such Singapore public documents, SAL must be satisfied with the origin of the document before it issues the apostille. This is provided for in clause 17 of the Bill.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And I am very pleased to be speaking on this suddenly very exciting Bill. I think it is exciting because it is the last speech of the day. But I want to thank Mr Pillai. I think it is true what he has said that his contributions from the backbench with his experience over several years, have contributed to our thinking on this. We looked more closely at the Convention and eventually, having satisfied ourselves that it is a Convention that we can accede to and that we have the necessary infrastructure in place to play the role as envisaged in the Convention, we have decided to proceed with this. So, thank you very much, Mr Pillai, for your contributions. Sir, let me go directly to the questions raised. First, on this question of the e-Apostille and the e-Register. Both Mr Pillai and Mr Ng raised this. Sir, of course, we welcome the use of technology to enhance the processes as long as they are safe and secure. And I am pleased to inform Mr Pillai and Mr Ng that SAL, which is the designated Competent Authority, is already working towards digitalising the entire apostillisation process. And this would include the issuance of electronic apostilles, and the operation of electronic registers of apostilles that can be accessed online by recipients so that they can verify the paper apostilles or e-Apostilles that they have received and this, I think is the "e-Register” that Mr Ng had in mind. Once this is ready, announcements will be made so that the process can then be explained and it will be known when this can be implemented. Mr Pillai and Mr Tan raised the question of fees that will be charged once SAL takes over. For the apostille fees, SAL intends to charge $10 for each apostille certificate at the inception.”
“Mr Speaker, copies of the Bill have been provided to the Clerk, who will distribute it to Members now. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]”
“Thank you. Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020." [(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]”
“Events like that in the past, as well as events in the future, will continue to nurture to grow and will give each of these artists as best a pipeline as possible, as best a development pathway as possible for them to shine on the world stage because ultimately that is what we want.”
“Sir, I thank Ms Tan not only for her question now, but really, also for the Adjournment Motion that she filed some weeks ago. It had given us a lot of food for thought and really, we took on board the points as we looked at what else we could do, how else you could support the immediate short term of the freelancers, the coaches and the performers. But more importantly, I am very cognisant of the points she makes about the longer term vision. It is precisely because we have to have the ability to have the longer term to be able to prepare our artists today and to protect them. Ms Tan might know that we have a Culture Academy. The culture Academy is really a set up to look at the short-term needs, the industry and also to chart the longer term goals. In fact, just this morning I had a meeting with many of our Arts Institution heads. We had an interesting dialogue and the same question has come up. We have come a long way. The fact that we have so many different cultural institutions and we had a room full of people from the different types of arts from visual, to theatre, to performing, to music, says a lot about how we have grown that sector over the past years. But, we are never content with where we are and I share Ms Tan's passion to make Singapore art not just local but also global, to blend what we want to do here with our unique Singaporean heritage and identity, with what we can deliver on the world stage. And if Ms Tan is looking for recognition, just look at the exhibition today at the National Museum, started on the 8 October 2020, the Venice Biennale exhibition, Music For Everyone, and you will see that actually that exhibition has been on the world stage.”
“People must be able to see and also appreciate, the intrinsic value that arts, culture, and sports can bring to our community. It brings us together. It allows us to rally behind our athletes, our Team, our sporting heroes. It builds and it shapes Singapore, and the kind of Singapore we want to live in, in a way which nothing else can. Singaporeans have turned to the arts, culture and sports to find respite, inspiration, and even to uplift spirits over the last few months in these times. Now, our practitioners need you as well. I urge all of us to support them as much as we can. Whether it is for the established artists, or the nascent sporting talent, they all thrive on having an audience. They will perform even more gracefully – I am sure, compete more vigorously when they are cheered on by an appreciative audience. I think we all can see why. I hope we can also be receptive to the new ways of consuming the arts, culture and sports. Some of the programmes, like Bandon that I mentioned earlier, please get onto them, please experience them for yourselves. Support them as they bring better content, programmes and events to you. To our practitioners in all these sectors, I encourage you to stay determined, continue to hone your craft, build your skills, train, compete, perform. Each of you will continue to be a vital part of the Singapore Tapestry, bringing together rich patterns and colours drawn from each of your diverse contributions and special talents, and your own achievements in arts, culture and music, and sports. All of these threads make for a more vibrant, exciting and cohesive Singapore. Be assured that we value the work that you do, and the Government will support you. Thank you, Sir. With that, I support the Ministerial Statement. [Applause.]”
“Sir, besides arts and sports, we know that, perhaps especially in these times, many turned to religion as s source of solace, spiritual comfort and well-being. Therefore, we have been working closely with religious organisations to resume more activities safely. My colleagues and I have visited many such religious organisations, or the ROs, over the last couple months. It is encouraging to see they have adapted so very quickly, put safety as the primary consideration, and have been committed to working closely with the Government, placing the well-being of their devotees first. Following a successful pilot of the increase in worship limits to 100 persons, all ROs have been allowed to conduct congregational and worship activities/services for up to 100 persons – with the necessary safe management measures in place – that has been the case since 3 October 2020. We continue to be in constant dialogue with our religious leaders. Many have shared that singing and live music are integral to the way they practice their faith. So, we have commenced two separate pilots, in selected ROs – one to allow up to 250 persons at a time for worship services; and another a pilot to resume live music for worship services across different faith groups. We will see how that goes, study them, take on the lessons to be learnt, and consider whether we can extend the higher worship limits and live music subsequently to all other ROs and religious activities. Finally, Mr Speaker, coming back to the packages that I have outlined today. Much as these will help many tide over this period, we also know that it will take more than just financial assistance to sustain and to develop these sectors.”
“In the coming days, we hope also to progressively reintroduce programmes at museums in a safe manner as more social activities resume. As Mr David pointed out. Singaporeans can also look forward to the return of the Singapore Premier League this Saturday, after a hiatus of more than six months. The teams have resumed training, initially in small groups of five, subsequently full-squad training. I met a few of them when I visited the Lion City Sailors Football Club at Bishan stadium a few weeks ago. I could see that they were all keenly motivated by the desire to get back onto the field and to compete. We are also working with health authorities to pilot the resumption of spectator sports and mass participation sport events in the near future. In particular, we will have to find new modalities for mass participation events to avoid large concentrations of people at one place and also to consider the use of blended models in some of these events. One such example of a blended event pilots is the “Run as One” event, where small groups of runners were given time slots to compete across a fixed route over the course of two weeks. So, you are given the best example of own-time-own target – go at your own time but complete the distance. Nowadays everyone has a fitness tracker, and you can track your time and the distance covered. These examples give us some options in how we will introduce or reintroduce mass participation events. These pilots also allow us to test and refine the sports formats, with the goal of making them as safe as possible and also to try to maximise the amount of interactivity and fun that participants and spectators want to enjoy.”
“Likewise, for arts freelancers, MCCY and NAC, through the ARH, will work with them to step up on efforts to help them tap on available resources, to support them, identify and facilitate also work opportunities, skills upgrading, and also help them leverage on digital technology. It might not always be as easy for freelancers to be doing this on their own. We recognise that and we have a team set up to look into their needs, and to see how best to organise this, to organise the efforts to pair them up with available programmes. We encourage our freelance artists in the community to contact the ARH directly should they need assistance. Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably disrupted our sectors. We are facing both short- and longer term challenges. The Government is committed to helping as many as possible in the sector to pull through, to remain viable, and to continue to play a rich part in the Singapore Tapestry. In the immediate short term, the financial measures that I have outlined briefly will help. But we know that the most sustainable way to help our sectors is to allow for the activities to resume not only at scale, but also safely. We are as eager as our artists, and our athletes, and the wider community for this to happen, and we have been working towards this goal. Recently, my colleagues and I attended several live performance pilots, including those by the Singapore Dance Theatre, Bhaskar’s Arts Academy, Singapore Symphony Orchestra, to name a few. These were carried out safely and successfully. We are reviewing now how we can fully resume and scale up live performances for the sector, with the appropriate measures to always prioritise the safety of our audiences, the performers and the crew.”
“Hence, MCCY and our agencies have taken a light touch towards freelancers in the past, recognising the value of spontaneity and flexibility in their work – one day you can work on your own, another day you can come together and collaborate with another institution, but there is that spontaneous freedom. But COVID-19 has thrown into sharp focus the importance of having some dedicated organised framework to look after these freelancers to support their efforts, to help them apply for and get into the programmes that the Government has put up. We, my colleagues and Minister of State Low Yen Ling in particular, have reached out to many freelancers, and we will continue to do so – to help them to level up and to allow them to bring in more diversity to their craft. The sport freelancers I have met have also expressed their desire to do so. To support them, we have set aside $2.5 million under the SRP for two initiatives. First, coaches who are registered under the National Registry of Coaches or NROC can receive a training allowance of $10 per hour when they take up courses run by CoachSG, and this is when you take it up beyond the Continuing Coach Education courses that they take. Second, CoachSG will select 50 to 80 pairs of Level 2 and Level 3 NROC-registered coaches to participate in its structured mentorship programme. To encourage more to sign up for this programme to raise their coaching expertise so that once we are back – closer to what was normal before – these coaches will become more relevant and have more skillsets to impart to their trainees. To encourage this, participants will be provided between $400 and $600 per month to sign up for this mentorship programme.”