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 27 of 45.
“This is defined in section 37(7) of the Bill to mean an individual practicing a profession that provides medical advice. This includes doctors, dentists and oral health therapists, and is not an exhaustive list. The scope is broad enough to include any individual who practices a profession that provides medical advice, or for which it can be shown that there exists peer professional opinion. We appreciate, Sir, that, beyond the language and contours of the legislation itself, healthcare professionals will require detailed guidance on what is required from them under the new test in practice. We fully agree and we intend to provide such guidance, working with the professional bodies, also the SMC and the CMEP to do so. For a start, we will be revising the Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines or ECEG of both the Singapore Medical Council and Singapore Dental Council in respect of the issue of the taking of informed consent. That in fact, was something that the work group itself had proposed as a draft in its report and we will use that as a basis to start the revision of the ethical code and guidelines. There was in fact, a strong recommendation by the work group to do so to reduce the ECEG into basic core irreducible principles of professional conduct, and use that to gauge and guide doctors in terms of where that bright white line ought to be when it comes to the thresholds. Steps will be taken to review and revise the SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines so that it is in-step with these latest proposed amendments both to the Civil Law Act as well as to the Medical Registration Act. Sir, this new test for medical advice seeks to recalibrate, but not completely overhaul the standard of care for medical advice. We believe it endows it with more clarity and certainty.”
“On the other hand, we are also making clear that a healthcare professional cannot simply refuse to provide information to his patient, merely because he thinks that providing a particular piece of medical advice or undergoing a treatment is in the best interests of his patient. In other words, you cannot make up your mind for the patient and then, decide, based on that end outcome, what information you will or will not tell the patient. That will not be reasonable justification. Sir, if there are different peer professional opinions held by other respected healthcare professionals, then, each of these opinions can still be used, provided it satisfies that test of logic. If Members can look at section 37(4), this recognises that there may be diversity of views amongst healthcare professionals, all of which are in-principle equally valid for consideration. But, of course, for each of them to be logical, they have to cohere with the standards and pass the test of logic and reasonableness, in the manner which I have described earlier. Finally, Sir, let me outline the scope of the new test. Section 37(6) of the Bill provides that the test applies not only in respect of medical advice given to patients, but also medical advice given to a person who is responsible for making a decision about undergoing a treatment or following a particular piece of medical advice on behalf of someone else – that someone else being a patient who is otherwise, legally disabled. A legally disabled person is someone who does not have the mental competence to make the decision for himself. For example, a parent would be responsible for making a decision on behalf of his infant child. Second, the test applies to healthcare professionals.”
“Other relevant factors to the assessment would include what transpired during the discussion that the patient has had with the doctor and how the query or concern was characterised in the previous medical records. So, if something is mentioned in passing and does not feature prominently across the spectrum of the medical records, then it is less likely that it would be something that ought to be apparent to the doctor. To enhance the understanding of how the provision operates, the Bill provides an illustration at section 37(3)(b) on when information that is not expressly communicated to the attending doctor will be considered material. The illustration of a patient undergoing a total knee reconstruction in that case is by no means intended to define or circumscribe what is “reasonable” in every case. It is just intended to give an example of what could or would satisfy the requirements of reasonableness in the illustration. Sir, let me now move on to the third limb. The third limb, by contrast, addresses the other side of the equation; it asks whether there is reasonable justification on the part of the healthcare professional in situations where information is not given. This is in section 37(2)(b). The Bill contains several illustrations in this regard. For example, there may be reasonable justification for not providing information in a situation of emergency or where a patient has waived his right of information by telling the healthcare professional that he does not want to be given information, and that can be established. Whether there is a waiver is a matter of fact – sometimes of mixed fact and law – and the peer professional opinion can assist in the forensic analysis and weighing up of whether there has been such a waiver by the Judge or tribunal.”
“The litmus test is that of reasonableness – both in terms of what the healthcare professional has reasonable access to and also whether in the circumstance of the case, the discussion with the patient, the context in which the patient is seeing the doctor, whether that creates a scenario where the doctor ought to reasonably review these past records. What is reasonable is a matter to be assessed in the context of each case and it is not possible to define upfront, at the start, all the categories, in a closed fashion, of information that will be regarded as reasonable or not reasonable. For instance, a factor that would go into the assessment of what is reasonable might well be the age of the medical records in question. So, it would not ordinarily appear to be reasonable for a healthcare professional to have to trawl through old microfilms and medical records going back 10 years, barring some exceptional circumstance. And so, therefore, the older the medical records are, the less likely it would be that it would be reasonable to expect the healthcare professional to review them. But if there is an old medical record or an old investigation that is labelled, and you put a bright sticky tape on it and it is taped to the front of the file in an obvious way, and it makes some notes about this person's history from some years ago – perhaps an unusual investigation that has taken place or perhaps an allergy that would not be easily discerned from trawling through the files – then it would make it harder for that healthcare professional to say that that is something that he ought not look at in the context of this treatment.”
“So, an express question or query or some discussion raised by the patient. That does not require any further elaboration. If a doctor is asked a specific question, that becomes something he has to explain. Second, in the second limb in section 37(3)(b), where it relates to specific concerns or queries which the patient does not expressly communicate, but which ought to be apparent from the medical records of the patient which the healthcare professional has reasonable access to and ought reasonably to review. It is a bit of a mouthful, but let me explain why it is couched this way and to ensure that Members in this House understand it. For the avoidance of doubt, any concerns expressly communicated by a patient have to be addressed. The work group was quite unanimous in the view that if it has been brought up expressly to the doctor, then the doctor has to address those queries. In short, in that scenario, the patient can be assured that when he walks into a clinic and sees a doctor, there really are no “stupid questions”. Every question that this patient raises with this doctor, is a valid, relevant question that has to be addressed. In relation to information that ought to be apparent from medical records, this is not intended to impose an obligation on healthcare professionals to review and go back into reviewing substantial volumes of medical records or voluminous medical history on the National Electronic Health Record or NEHR, in order to try and work out or ferret out what are the concerns or queries the patient might have. That is not the intention and clearly, that is not also provided for in the statute. It is also not practical or feasible in practice.”
“This statutory test also does not change the test for medical diagnosis and treatment, both of which continue to be governed by the existing legal test in the common law that is premised solely on peer professional opinion, that is, the Bolam-Bolitho test. This is since the principle of patient autonomy has a much smaller role to play in the arena of medical diagnosis and treatment, both of which remain largely within the domains of doctors. The new test also prescribes the standard by which the peer professional opinion must assess the information given by healthcare professionals. To this, there are three limbs. If Members can look at section 37(2), the first limb is set out in (2)(a)(i). The healthcare professional must give his patient information that a patient in the same circumstances, that is, a “typical” patient, would reasonably require to make an informed decision about whether to undergo a treatment or follow a particular piece of medical advice. In the second limb, in section 37(2)(a)(ii), the healthcare professional must give his patient information that he knows or ought reasonably to know is material to that “specific” patient for the purpose of making the same informed decision as in the first limb. So, section 37(2)(a)(i) provides for what you might do for a typical patient. That is judged by what the peers would regard as appropriate. The second limb requires the professional to also think about what might be material to this patient. Let me explain that a little bit more. Material information falls into either of two categories, which are set out in section 37(3). First, if it relates to specific concerns or queries that the patient expressly communicates in relation to undergoing the treatment or on the medical advice.”
“It has been subsequently codified in various Australian states through legislation on civil liability, following a review on the law of negligence by an expert panel in 2002. For example, Queensland’s Civil Liability Act and Victoria’s Victorian Wrongs Act prescribe a general standard of care for professionals. Section 21 of the Queensland statute, in particular, sets out the scope of a doctor’s duty to warn a patient of risks. Sir, I will now take Members through the main features of the new statutory test. The test provides that a healthcare professional will meet the standard of care in giving medical advice to a patient where two conditions are satisfied. This is set out in section 37(1). These two conditions are: First, he acts in a manner which is accepted by the medical opinion of a respectable body of such healthcare professionals as reasonable professional practice in the circumstances. We call this, in short, the “peer professional opinion”. Second, this peer professional opinion has to be logical, in that it has compared and weighed the risks and benefits of the conduct in question and arrived at a defensible conclusion that is internally consistent and does not ignore known medical facts – a formulation that I am sure that many in this House would be familiar with. These two conditions incorporate the same legal principles that were used to assess healthcare professionals’ conduct using the Bolam-Bolitho Test. To be clear, this does not change the burden of proof for civil claims in medical negligence. As before, a claimant patient continues to have the legal burden of proving that the healthcare professional has not met the standard of care in providing medical advice to him.”
“So, for example, information about a procedure that a patient specifically asked for must be provided to the patient. And this is irrespective of whether some other patient might have wanted it or some other patient might have regarded it as material or otherwise. This gives primacy to what might be of concern to the patient at hand – the patient in front of the doctor – recognising that no two patients and no two consultations are identical. At the same time, however, the test will uphold the principle of self-regulation in the medical profession, by providing that regard should be had to what peer healthcare professionals say as to the appropriate standard of care in giving a patient information. This is the peer review standard, which I had mentioned earlier. The Courts will continue to have oversight, by ensuring that the views of peer healthcare professionals pass muster when it comes to logic and reasonableness. In concept, this is not a fundamental shift in direction – the underlying principles would be familiar to doctors, to lawyers alike and they are ones which are currently established in law. However, we agree with the work group that the way in which the test is articulated best strikes the appropriate balance between the principles of self-regulation and patient autonomy. Sir, before I go into the specific provisions, I would like to highlight that we are not alone in taking steps to codify the law in this area. In Australia, the law of negligence, including its application to professionals such as healthcare professionals, had already departed from the English common law in some significant way in Rogers v Whitaker.”
“Others, such as general practitioners – and we have heard one example earlier in the statistics – have decided not to offer certain treatments altogether. They opt to refer their patients to specialists instead, for fear of complaints being made against them. All of these, as Members appreciate, are worrying developments. They threaten patient safety, they undermine the doctor-patient relationship, they make it less cost effective and overall, a weaker system for all. Another subtle but perhaps understated state of affairs is that the current system is premised on a dichotomy that one has to choose: one has to be either patient-centric or doctor-centric, rendering the patient and doctor constantly pitted against one another in a zero-sum game. Sir, it would be better to frame the legal test as one which coheres with a doctor and patient, jointly managing his or her medical outcome. One which acknowledges the reality that doctor and patient are, in fact, on the same side, working towards the same outcome: the good health and recovery of the patient. And striving to create an environment where doctors feel safe to give advice to allow a patient to make that judgement himself. But at the same time, creating an environment where the patient knows that he is entitled to ask any question he wants in that consultation, and the doctor has to give due regard to it. After studying the work group’s recommendations, the Government accepted the recommendation to recalibrate the test for medical advice in the way in which I had outlined earlier. On the one hand, this new test will strive to preserve the principle of patient autonomy as set out in Hii Chii Kok, by requiring healthcare professionals to give their patients the information they require to make an informed decision.”
“At paragraph 13 of its report, the work group stated, "While some doctors understand how the test is to be applied, many others have expressed confusion and anxiety about what exactly they are now required to do. Some doctors have even candidly admitted that they now practice defensively just to be sure." The work group found that doctors became unsure of how to advise patients in a manner that meets the standard of care, especially so given the realities of practice where doctors see a large number of patients across a wide spectrum on a given day. I would add that much of this is likely to be a perceived uncertainty, as I said earlier and as the work group has also found, but perceived or otherwise, this leads to a course of conduct to guard against that perception. In the face of this perceived uncertainty, some doctors have started to adopt defensive practices. I mentioned some of these engagements earlier. In one such engagement, a senior consultant specialist in private practice shared that this doctor took as long as 30 minutes to explain a procedure to patients, not necessarily with the end outcome of ensuring that the patients would come away with it with more information or more understanding but really out of an abundance of caution. This doctor presented this view in a town hall that had close to 250 doctors present. It was quite a startling admission. As the work group put it in their report, "Patients are not necessarily better informed. On the contrary, we have received feedback that they are now increasingly inundated with information and are none the wiser." Some doctors have become more reluctant to guide their patients’ decision-making, worrying that they may be accused of paternalism in doing so.”
“To understand the background and context to these amendments, it would be useful to quickly set out the current legal standard. Prior to 2017, whether a doctor had met the requisite standard of care in the duty to advise or not was assessed by reference to the practices and opinions of a responsible body of his peers. This is called the "responsible body of medical opinion". Some might know it as the Bolam-Bolitho Test. In 2017, the Court of Appeal pronounced the current legal standard for the doctor's duty to advise in the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien. I will refer to this 2017 decision as the "Hii Chii Kok test". Under the Hii Chii Kok test, a doctor's duty to advise requires that he disclose to a patient information that is relevant and material when giving the patient medical advice. The Court assesses what is relevant and material information from the perspective of the particular patient. The Hii Chii Kok Test was borne out of the observation that the Bolam-Bolitho Test did not sufficiently give effect to the principle of patient autonomy and that the previous test was regarded as too "doctor-centric". While undoubtedly well-intentioned, this test in Hii Chii Kok has led to some uncertainty amongst doctors. The work group, in particular, found that many doctors perceived the Hii Chii Kok test as bringing in an element of variability and hence uncertainty as to what each patient might want to know, since what is relevant and material is said to be assessed from the patient's perspective. Sir, I hasten to add that this is not necessarily an accurate reading of the test in Hii Chii Kok. The test in Hii Chii Kok seeks to strike a balance but the way in which it is articulated has given rise to these uncertainties.”
“For other changes, we have needed to come to the Parliament for legislative changes to provide for the establishment of the required structures and to reform the process and procedures. Sir, these changes are now reflected by way of amendments in the Civil Law Act and the Medical Registration Act. We will also – apart from what the work group has recommended – propose to include some additional amendments, some related and some fresher ones, to enhance the workflow and to streamline and strengthen the disciplinary process. Some of these amendments arise from an earlier review of the SMC process that the SMC had itself commissioned independent of the commencement of the work by the work group. Sir, the amendments to the Civil Law Act and the Medical Registration Act aim to achieve two broad objectives. The first is to set a clear standard for healthcare professionals' duty in giving medical advice to their patients. On this, Members will note what I have said earlier about there being a lack of clarity. If the doctors themselves have that uncertainty, that lends itself to an outcome that is uncertain and in the longer term, leading to defensive practices. Secondly, to strengthen the medical disciplinary system through more effective enforcement of professional standards, more expeditious resolution of complaints and an increased transparency overall in the disciplinary process. Clarity, certainty and consistency will be driving principles behind these amendments. Sir, I will now highlight the key features of the Bill, starting with the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill. This Bill seeks to legislate the standard of care that healthcare professionals have to meet in giving medical advice to their patients. For brevity, I will in this speech refer to this as the "duty to advise".”
“On 28 November 2019, the work group released its 100-page report setting out its final recommendations and also the background thinking to its recommendations and what it was proposing to do. The Government subsequently accepted the recommendations and the contents of the work group's report ought to be considered by Members when debating these two Bills that are before us. Sir, before moving on from this topic, I would just like to thank the work group members, the many organisers of the engagement sessions and all of whom who have provided views and suggestions voluntarily. They really kept coming at town halls, meetings, through emails and even on social media. If you talk to the work group members, they will tell you that they really lived and breathed the topic for a good nine months before they produced the report. Since accepting the work group's recommendations in December 2019, what have we done? Before coming to the Parliament with these two Bills, we have already implemented some of the changes. Let me just quickly outline a few of them. Those that do not require legislative change – for example, the enhanced training to ensure that there is quality of personnel across the spectrum of tribunals – has started. Internally, the SMC has devoted separate and additional resources to clear the existing backlog because Members will know that if and when this Bill is passed, this process and procedure will apply to new cases but not to the existing ones, which are to be resolved under the old regime. In other aspects, such as the enhanced use of meditation, that has also been promoted to the extent possible, even within the current framework and rubric.”
“They went to see the SMC itself; past and present members of the Complaints Committee and the Disciplinary Tribunal; the medical professional bodies, of which there are three and they represent the vast majority of doctors in Singapore; patient advocacy groups to ensure that in scoping the test, one does not also ignore the interests of the patient, which is paramount, as I have mentioned; insurers, who have a relevant role to play in rising healthcare costs and in ensuring that we continue to maintain a cap on where these costs are going; and of course also the lawyers, both on the prosecution and on the defense side in medico-legal cases. It is a very, very broad and extensive range of sessions that they had. The sessions were a very effective platform for the work group to listen to a wide range of views. What was obvious was that there was a consistent theme in the call for change, not just in relation to the prevailing legal and ethical requirements but really also in the manner in which the disciplinary process was being conducted. It was quite clear that there was an urgent need to restore trust in the system. I would say to Members that the broad range and depth of the consultation itself by the work group lends weight to the observations and recommendations which they have made. Starting from a clean canvas, the work group formulated preliminary recommendations from the early feedback they received. These were then re-presented back to the doctors in different town halls, the medical professional bodies and other groups, and the stakeholders for further views, fine-tuning and testing before they finalise those recommendations.”
“These issues, almost two decades ago, are quite the same and also about what to do with the legal standard for informed consent. These are also the issues identified by the work group today and it is clear that there is an urgent need to now address these issues swiftly and also decisively. Minister Gan Kim Yong made a Ministerial Statement in April last year outlining the steps that MOH would take to address these issues and one of them was to appoint a work group. He gave them a clean canvas and told them in these terms: to leave no stone unturned. Start from a blank canvas, go out and consult with as many as you can, take the time, study it, understand the concerns and make the recommendations. The work group was appointed in March 2019. It comprised doctors from various disciplines and also looking at having the composition, came from across a spectrum of different seniority of doctors. It also included the heads of the major medical professional bodies. It also comprised lawyers with significant medico-legal experience as well as laypersons with expertise in various fields. It was chaired by a medical director of a national specialty centre as well as a senior counsel. In formulating its recommendations, the work group consulted extensively with relevant stakeholders. They held about 40 town halls and engagement sessions. These engagements sought to understand the breadth and depth of concerns and issues with the taking of informed consent and with the SMC disciplinary procedure. They consulted more than 1,000 doctors of varying seniority from a range of diverse practices across the public and private healthcare settings.”
“A 2017 study published in the British Medical Journal found that protracted disciplinary proceedings were associated with an increase in defensive medicine in the form of avoidance behaviour – the kind of behaviour that one might have seen after Lim Lian Arn's case, when fewer doctors were prepared to offer that treatment. This journal was published, taking sensing and surveying statistics from the same jurisdiction where the Montgomery test on informed consent was framed. Sir, I should add also that these issues that we have just talked about are not novel issues. In 2001, Minister Shanmugam – at that time when he was a practising lawyer – gave the Singapore Medical Association or SMA Lecture that year entitled "Testing the Bolam Test". It was given at a time when there was a discussion after a landmark decision in the High Court about what the relevant standard of care ought to be when taking informed consent. That was in 2001. At that time, like now, the issue arose because of a judicial decision on how informed consent ought to be assessed. In that lecture, it was assessed that an increase in the practice of defensive medicine leads to far poorer outcomes, with some of the negative effects being: (a) a rise in medical procedures which are not in the best interests of the patient – more investigation and more checks just to ensure that there could not be a suggestion that perhaps some other test ought to have been done for this patient; (b) rising insurance and hence medical costs – overall, an increase in cost to the detriment of patients and to society; (c) stress for doctors, which we have heard articulated to the work group on several occasions; and (d) finally, critically, an erosion of trust in the doctor-patient relationship.”
“In addition, there are also accounts from the ground, from the doctors themselves, doctors whom we met – myself with my colleagues at MOH when I was there – with the work group that was appointed by MOH. We heard, for example, anecdotal accounts of doctors seeking to give patients voluminous amounts of information about all forms of possible risks from the textbooks and alternatives for the procedure, resulting in what the Courts regard as an "information dump" on the patient – a lot more information but really with a lot less understanding. When the work group – that was appointed by MOH to review the taking of informed consent and to study the SMC disciplinary procedure – discussed the issue at many town halls – and there were many open town halls that took place, both in the private hospitals and in the public hospitals – there was a very clear, palpable sense that doctors grew uncertain of the standards that were expected of them. Many of them turned inwards. They were spending less time on patient-focused information and instead, providing information in a manner that they themselves judged would best absolve themselves of liability should the patient complain. The focus became very different. The Court has – and the lawyers amongst us will know – on numerous occasions said that a doctor does not discharge his obligation to the patient by simply giving information without really trying to solicit understanding. That is not the way to take informed consent, but yet, we have seen numerous accounts of this take place. Beyond our shores, the experiences of other jurisdictions also serve as a warning to what might come if we do not take steps to address these issues.”
“And I should add the fact that the cases, particularly in those two that I have mentioned and others, have taken an extraordinarily long period of time to be dealt with from the time a complaint was first made, to when the DT resolved the case, has also added frustration, not just for doctors, but also to complainants. And this issue has arisen several times on several occasions over the last, I believe, at least a decade, before the Courts, resulting in many cases where the Courts have felt that they had to intervene to reduce the sentence on otherwise recalcitrant doctors. And that is also an indictment on the system. Sir, we are already seeing the negative effects of this uncertainty and worry in the medical profession. Let me just cite a peer reviewed study commissioned by the Singapore Medical Association and the College of Family Physicians Singapore. This was done in the period just after Dr Lim Lian Arn's case, the DT's decision. Doing a survey on the number of doctors who gave the same steroid injection, it showed that the number of doctors who were prepared to and continued to give that same steroid injection, the H&L injection, came down – the number of doctors reduced, while the median cost of these same injections increased. So, fewer doctors were prepared to offer the treatment, and when they did, it became more expensive for the patient. That is something done in Singapore on a procedure which most doctors would tell you is fairly routine. This study has demonstrated how the uncertainty engendered by these uncertainties, the medico-legal cases, the outcomes, has affected practice behaviour to the detriment of patients.”
“The Court observed that in Dr Lim's case, it was a "one-off failing committed in the course of a routine procedure", labelling the conviction in fairly strong words, a "miscarriage of justice". And that is a very serious indictment on the system. The Chief Justice's observations in Dr Lim's case were correct and timely, and served to restore some faith in the outcomes, and of course, also in the system. But members will also recall that shortly after Dr Lim's case, another decision by the SMC DT – this time, in Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang's case – gave rise to some further disquiet amongst the medical profession. This case also had to be subsequently overturned by the Court of Three Judges. In the wake of these cases, there was a significant disquiet within the medical fraternity. Many doctors grew uncertain as to what might be required of them when they saw a patient, advised the patient, took informed consent as well as they had also serious concerns as to whether the rigour of the SMC system was sufficient to see through the cases to get a clear, consistent and certain outcome. And whenever disciplinary outcomes diverge from well-established practices by doctors on patient care within the medical community, uncertainty follows. Doctors start to question their own judgement as to how much information is going to be enough to care for the patient, and there is the constant worry of whether this patient will make a complaint, and what will happen to the adjudication of that complaint. This has damaged the doctor-patient relationship.”
“That has not changed, and the high ethical standards that are found within the medical profession must be maintained and the patient must know that he receives the best possible treatment, each time and every time. In recent years, however, the relationships of trust that underpin our healthcare eco-system has been called into question, following several well publicised medico-legal cases from the Singapore Medical Council or SMC Disciplinary Tribunals or DTs. To give one example, Members will recall the case of Dr Lim Lian Arn, where the SMC DT had found Dr Lim guilty of failing to obtain informed consent from his patient. This was on the basis that he had failed to advise the patient on the risk of possible complications of a steroid injection, some of which subsequently manifested in the patient at hand. Dr Lim pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined the maximum of $100,000 by the DT. Many doctors took the view that the sentence and conviction by the DT were unwarranted. It set an unreasonable standard as to how much information should be given to a patient in order to meet the standard and what that standard might itself be. And many doctors felt that even if there was a lapse in standard in this case, whether it was of sufficient gravamen so as to amount to professional misconduct. Dr Lim's conviction was subsequently overturned on appeal to the Court of Three Judges, primarily on the basis that the disciplinary threshold of professional misconduct was not satisfied in that case. And in my view, rightly so. Questions arose as to whether this case ought even have gone to the DT in the first place, let alone result in a conviction with a sentence that attracted the highest possible fine under our legislation.”
“For patients, the quality of the doctor-patient relationship really has a direct impact on the quality of care and, of course, the outcome of care. Where that relationship is strong, then patients are more willing and more open to confide in the doctors, and that itself enhances the quality of the diagnosis and the quality of the outcomes. This in turn also allows the doctor freely to focus on the patient's needs, communicate information about the disease or condition and options for treatment honestly, openly and really without the spectre of having to look over his shoulders each time a patient walks into his clinic. This, in my view, enhances decision-making and outcomes for the patient. For doctors, where the disciplinary system does not effectively and also consistently enforce the profession's standards, they face uncertainty and unnecessary stress. To cope with this, doctors may feel pressured to adopt defensive practices that they think will best protect themselves, not enhance the patient's outcome but protect themselves. And even in doing so, they might become less effective in serving the needs of their patients. We have seen and I will show later on in my speech some examples, both here in Singapore as well as elsewhere in the world of such practices proceeding and then undermining the quality of care given to patients. Over time, these practices erode the trust of the patient and of course undermine the doctor-patient relationship. Sir, to be clear, our medical profession is, and has been built on and is steeped in the finest tradition of looking after the patient first, doing what is best for the patient, putting their interests as paramount.”
“Thank you. Mr Speaker, the practice of medicine revolves around the patient-doctor relationship. It is not exactly an equal relationship because the doctor has far more information and expertise than the patient. We call this information asymmetry in favour of the doctor. And that is why the patient-doctor relationship must be undergirded, supported and have its foundations in trust – trust between the patient and the doctor. The patient has to be able to trust that the doctor is doing his best for him; and to the doctor, the interests of the patient must be paramount at all times. Unfortunately, there will be instances where a doctor might fall short of what is expected of him and the doctor's conduct has to be looked at, and if necessary, sanctions might be imposed on the doctor. In such a situation, a doctor has to be able to trust the system that regulates the medical profession. He has to be certain as to the standards by which he is to be judged, able to put faith in a system that will be fair, transparent and also produce consistent outcomes. On this point, I would like to reiterate that we are in full agreement with the High Court Judges on several occasions who have pronounced the three main aims of a disciplinary system that regulates the ethical and professional behaviour of the medical profession. And they are: to uphold public interest – I think there really can be no doubt; second, to preserve and protect public confidence in the health system and the medical profession; and third, to achieve general deterrence in disciplinary outcomes such that other doctors are deterred from adopting unethical practices. The importance of trust in both contexts cannot be overstated.”
“I would therefore like to assure you, Mr Speaker, that MCCY and NAC are working proactively with MOH, through the pilots, on safe management measures to allow outdoor – and indoor – live performances to resume as soon as feasible, even as we continue to prioritise the health and safety of our performers, crew, and audiences. I am confident that our arts groups and practitioners will rise to the challenge, and transform how they present and perform their craft as we transit to the new normal. I also seek the public's understanding that the experience of attending a pilot performance will be different from the past, and ask for everyone’s cooperation to abide by the safe management measures, so that we can better enable our arts community to resume their activities over time. NAC and NHB will continue to support our arts and culture groups and practitioners to engage new audiences, and cultivate new ones, in new and innovative ways. We urge members of the public to also continue supporting Singapore's arts and culture – by attending online shows and donating to your favoured groups and artists, to sustain them and help them emerge stronger after COVID-19.”
“The arts and culture community has been significantly affected by COVID-19. The resumption of live performances is important not only to restore a source of livelihood for our arts practitioners, professionals and organisations, but also a way in which the community can contribute to uplifting spirits of Singaporeans. Since 19 June 2020, all workplaces in the arts sector have safely resumed operations. Museums and galleries are now also open to visitors. We have taken a cautious approach towards the resumption of activities in the arts and culture sector, particularly on live performances which carry higher transmission risks. Around the world, we have observed COVID-19 clusters forming as a result of such performances. For example, a choir performance in Netherlands resulted in 102 members of the choir falling ill with COVID-19, while in Japan, at least six clusters of cases were linked to performances in music venues. MCCY and National Arts Council (NAC) have been working closely with MOH and other agencies, such as A*STAR, to develop safe management measures and tools that will help ensure the safety of our performers, crews and audiences in the context of live performances. As announced on 21 August 2020, MCCY and NAC are currently conducting live performance pilots at selected indoor and outdoor spaces, to trial the safe management measures that we have developed. Several pilots, including a traditional music performance at the Esplanade Outdoor Theatre, have been completed successfully. The experience of these pilots will allow us to progressively scale-up live performances in both outdoor and indoor spaces.”
“As I have flagged, this is a process that is on-going and we are always taking into account what users want to see – developments in the law and, of course, international conventions and practices as well. We will continue to make Singapore an attractive seat for arbitration disputes. With that, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Louis Ng will know that the Courts have consistently looked at the scope of the arbitration agreement and to study that to assess the extent of the confidentiality obligations. Next, let me move on to the amendments which have considered in the consultation but not brought in this Bill. Both Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim have enquired about these amendments and the proposals that were considered. I have briefly outlined these other considerations earlier and they broadly relate to the opt-in right of appeal and the proposal for the waiver or limitation of the annulment grounds. These are still being studied and are not part of today's Bill, but I welcome Mr Vikram Nair's as well as Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's views on them. I think Mr Louis Ng also said that these would add value to our landscape. We agree with the views that are set out. We will add them on to the very many REACH views that we have received so far on this and study them together with the various stakeholders that I have mentioned at the outset. When we are ready with that, we will come back and I am sure we will also consult with Mr Louis Ng and the others who have raised the points here. In the final analysis, on these points, I want to assure Members and the arbitration community that my Ministry recognises the range of options and the diversity of views on these proposals. As I have said, some go towards whether or not they should be implemented; others have given us suggestions as to how they can be implemented. The operationalisation of these mechanisms also needs some study to ensure that they are consistent and that they lend themselves to fairness. Sir, in conclusion, we believe that this Bill introduces amendments that best serve the needs of the arbitral community.”
“So, these are all questions that I hope Mr Louis Ng will appreciate, but which arise maybe as a consequence of there being a confidentiality obligation in the first place which, as far as we are concerned, there is no argument over. Which is why we are proposing these amendments to allow the tribunal and the High Court to enforce these obligations. But the question as to what you do with the confidential obligations, how you enforce, is something that ought to be looked at case to case and context to context. That is something that the High Court here in Singapore and also internationally have espoused. So, for that reason, we have decided against codifying and setting out the exact scope to what it applies and when it applies and let the Courts and the tribunal assess that question on a case-by-case basis. In addition, we have also taken this view because it is also a recognition that this area of law is still evolving. There have been cases, both locally as well as internationally. Some, Mr Patrick Tay has cited earlier, and also International case law on this and it is a question that is best left to the common law at this stage to develop more fully. I would add to Mr Louis Ng's point also that where parties to an agreement – if you come to an agreement and you have a specific concern, you have a specific confidentiality attached to, say, an IP patent or to a piece of information that is very sensitive – it is open to the parties to expressly incorporate provisions specific to their own needs in their arbitration agreement and that will be enforced. Members will remember that, at the outset, I mentioned that the confidentiality arises in a number of ways, one of which is through the parties' express agreement in the arbitration agreement itself.”
“Moving to Mr Louis Ng's question as to why the obligation of confidentiality is not codified and whether we would consider doing so, let me again give a bit of background. As I have mentioned earlier, it has its roots in common law, so it is implied in the proceedings. Mr Louis Ng mentioned that, in Hong Kong, it has been codified and it might then improve or, at least, enhance the proceedings. Let me just clarify that the fact that there is a duty of confidentiality is really quite unarguable. So, what Hong Kong has done is to say that there is a duty of confidentiality. But in our proceedings here in Singapore, especially in the context of what I have mentioned in the SIAC Rules, it is really quite unarguable. What the real issue is, when it comes to confidentiality, is often what are the quality and nature of that confidentiality. What does it do to the information and documents that are exchanged in those proceedings? That, as I have mentioned earlier, might take a different shape or be differently contoured, depending on the context. So, what exactly is that scope? To whom does it apply? Does it apply only to the parties or the witnesses? You may have to look at what are the facts of that case, bring them up and the context, before you assess that question. When does it apply? Does it apply at the start? But it may not have the same quality as the start if, subsequently, information is disclosed or allowed to be disclosed or divulged by one party. So, the further context as to when you are looking at the issue will also be relevant. Of course, finally, how is it best enforced? Is it by way of an injunction of some sort, a mandatory injunction, or would the parties be allowed to disclose it in a measured way under a ringfence or redacted.”
“To a reference that Mr Louis Ng brought up about institutional rules, I should add that the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules do stipulate the scope of confidentiality and that it is stated to cover the existence of the proceedings itself, like the Hong Kong position that Mr Louis Ng mentioned – the pleadings, evidence and what other materials might arise in the context of the proceedings and, of course, all documents produced in discovery in those proceedings, and, finally, the award that was issued at the culmination of the proceedings. I will come back to this point in a moment as I address Mr Louis Ng's other point in a less quick-fire way. Some examples of situations where the Courts have found that confidentiality obligations have been waived or where disclosure of confidential information is accepted include the following: (a) where the award is registered as a Singapore judgment and, obviously, it then enters into the realm of the public domain and privacy can no longer be attached to those proceedings and, therefore, the award itself; (b) alternatively, where parties have, by their own conduct, indicated for an agreement for the confidentiality to be waived, for example, by not requesting that an open Court proceeding in which confidential information is to be discussed or would be brought up in those proceedings, not requesting that those proceedings be heard in-camera; and (c) where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct and there is a “public interest” behind why that information ought to be disclosed and an exception made for the confidential information arising out of the arbitration proceedings to be disclosed.”
“The amendments do not seek to change the law or add new obligations, but seeks to ensure that it is clear beyond the pale that the tribunal and the High Court will have the power to enforce these obligations. Mr Patrick Tay asked for clarifications on instances where the obligations might be waived. Sir, the duty has its roots in common law. As Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, Justice Kan mentioned this in a 2003 decision that it is implied that parties who choose arbitration are more likely to take into account the fact that these are private hearings and have the cloak of confidentiality. The Courts, however, have also noted – and I think Mr Patrick Tay also briefly alluded to that – that we should take care not to generalise what that duty would encompass upfront, that is, not to spell it out upfront. Mr Vikram Nair also noted that this gives a degree of flexibility because, as a case proceeds, the quality and nature of confidentiality over a specific piece of information or document might change. Likewise, whether or when a confidentiality obligation is to be waived must also be assessed in the context of the facts in which the issue arises. I would add that, in any given case, regard must also be given to the chosen institutional rules that the parties have agreed will apply to their own arbitration and whether or not there are any specific rules in that setting relevant to the way in which they look at confidentiality.”
“So, to allow the appointing authority some flexibility and the discretion to take into account what I have just articulated and, indeed, what Mr Louis Ng had put forward in his speech, the appointing authority is now clothed with the ability to look at all relevant circumstances and we do not define upfront what that might be precisely because it may differ from case to case and the antecedent conduct of the parties in terms of the choice of the arbitrator would be something that the appointing authority would look at. So, to that extent, the authority can look at factors, such as whether the parties on one side may have reached an agreement or not in the way that Mr Louis Ng has put it, or the reasons why one side was not able to come to an agreement. That is also relevant. It may not be because of trying to frustrate the process or trying to delay the proceedings. That is also relevant. And the appointing authority will have the ability to look at and study all these factors. In the context of appointing the three arbitrators, we have given broad remit to the authority to do so. So, it may reappoint. We have expressly said it may reappoint, meaning if one party has already chosen, it may reappoint, or it may decide to revoke the appointment altogether and decide afresh. We believe that this strikes the right balance between the principles of equality and also party autonomy, something that Mr Louis Ng and Mr Vikram Nair also spoke about. On the question of confidentiality, the amendment is to recognise that the tribunal and the High Court will have power to enforce these obligations.”
“Although the solutions adopted differ in some particulars, most major institutional rules, including the LCIA Arbitration Rules that Mr Louis Ng referred to, now either permit or, in fact, require the institutions to designate the entire tribunal in multi-party proceedings. In other words, the moment there is a disagreement on one party's nomination, then the rules either permit or, in fact, they require the appointing authority to designate the entire tribunal. That is the position in LCIA and also some other major institutions. The reason behind this is to preclude imbalance or, at least, the perception of imbalance in the way in which the tribunal is subsequently appointed and avoid a situation where just one party has a say on his or her nominee for the arbitration. In scoping section 9B, we can see that there are many reasons why a party may not be able to agree or has chosen not to agree to the arbitrator. It could be because parties do not identify with the same “side” as the party nominating it even though we may be co-respondents to the arbitration, or it may be because one party is intentionally delaying the proceedings, not nominating, or dragging its feet, as I have mentioned earlier, so as to trigger the default mechanism to appoint all three and, in that process, hope to sideline the choice put up by the other party. And we are very much alive to that possibility.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members, particularly Mr Ng for slowing his speech, but I will have a response for him, perhaps in a less quick-fire fashion. Sir, I am very grateful that the Members have highlighted that the principle of party autonomy, which really has been one of the key considerations in the way in which we have organised arbitration rules or laws. And obviously, our whole eco-system in encouraging parties to come into Singapore and choose Singapore as a neutral, trusted venue. We understand and agree with this principle which really undergirds the amendments that we have proposed in this Bill. Members have sought various clarifications and I will address these in turn. Mr Ng’s first question relates to the question of whether the appointing authority should also take into account the agreement that had already been reached by the parties at the stage where the appointing party’s role is triggered, and whether it should take that into account when deciding on the appointment all three arbitrators. Sir, that was a very good question and let me just give a little bit of background before I answer Mr Ng’s question. In the feedback we that we received from the various consultations, the principle of equal treatment of the parties in the context especially of the appointment of the tribunal was something which was emphasised to us. It is part of the adjudicative system. Arbitral institutional rules and also the national laws unanimously impose a requirement, whether express or implied, that the parties be treated equally throughout the process.”
“The second run of the YAC will start this October, with a focus on COVID-19; (ii) Young ChangeMakers, a platform for youths to pitch ideas that benefit the community and receive grants to implement their ideas. NYC has made it easier and faster for Covid-19 related projects to access grants; and (iii) Youth Corps Singapore, where youths can volunteer for community activities in areas such as mental health, vulnerable groups and environment. COVID-19 has certainly not limited our youths' perspectives or ambitions for our country. We have heard their views as part of an ongoing journey that started with the Youth Conversations in 2018, followed by the SG Youth Action Plan, and we will further build on these through the ongoing SG Together Emerging Stronger Conversations. Our youths will have more opportunities to discuss national issues and policies, and be part of the implementation plans, so that Singapore society can emerge stronger from COVID-19.”
“MCCY and the National Youth Council (NYC) have been engaging our youths during the COVID-19 period, through our digital platforms, to better understand and respond to their sentiments and concerns. During this period, our youths have been concerned about job prospect, finances, and their mental well-being. In response, NYC partnered youth sector organisations to create digital content and resources to help youths cope with the COVID-19 situation. For example, videos, articles and infographics addressing these concerns were published on Youth.sg. NYC also partnered CR8 Studio SG, a digital video channel that hired creative freelancers affected by COVID-19, to develop content to engage youths during the Circuit Breaker. Our youths also care about how COVID-19 has impacted our wider society, such as vulnerable groups. They see an opportunity to restate what Singapore stands for, and re-shape our society to be more inclusive, and sustainable. Many have stepped forward to organise or participate in initiatives to help vulnerable groups, and re-create social connections during this time when it is difficult to gather as we would usually do pre-COVID. Government and the National Youth Council will continue to enable and partner our youth, to address their concerns and also their aspirations to contribute during this time. These platforms include: (i) Youth Action Challenge (YAC), where youths can come up with innovative solutions on issues they care about, supported with funding and mentorship. The first run of YAC, held in September 2019 involved about 250 youths forming teams and pitching 57 project ideas to a panel of judges.”
“We encourage Singaporeans of all generations to step forward to be part of our democracy of deeds, and to work together to gift a stronger, better Singapore for future generations.”
“(a) Seniors have stepped up to be part of the Mentoring Alliance to mentor youths; (b) Youth Corps Singapore's Eldercare Cluster has regular youth-led initiatives such as Cantonese classes taught by seniors to youths, as well as Senior Superheroes where seniors impart practical knowledge and skills including shopping at wet markets and cooking to youths; (c) NYC supports youth-led initiatives such as Interlogue aimed at strengthening relationships between grandparents and children through a museum programme involving conversation starter kits and activities. (d) Our Singapore Fund has also supported ground-up initiatives by groups such as the Cassia Resettlement Team, Empower Aging and ACE Seniors, which bring different generations of Singaporeans together to serve the community. It will be increasingly important for different generations of Singaporeans to work together to overcome our challenges – such as the ones brought to the fore by the pandemic – and to seize the opportunities ahead of us. This ability to work together, empathise with the experiences of different generations, and recognise each others’ strengths, will also make us a more competitive workforce as our workplaces will better harness the energies of a more diverse profile of employees. Therefore, MCCY will continue to work with other agencies to provide more platforms for Singaporeans of all ages to work together. However, fostering inter-generational collaboration is not something the Government can do alone. It ultimately requires all Singaporeans, young and old, to make the effort to listen and build relationships with one another.”
“MCCY brings together Singaporeans from across generations to build consensus on issues that matter to them, and plan our future together. Some examples are as follows: (a) We engage Singaporeans to forge our shared identity, and to think about the values and legacy we want to leave behind for future generations. More than 80,000 people of all ages contributed their ideas and views to the Founders' Memorial to date. (b) This year, in spite of the on-going pandemic, 74 Singaporeans aged between 17 and 73 are working together to create content to update the Singapore Citizenship Journey for new citizens. (c) In June 2020, DPM Heng Swee Keat launched the Singapore Together Emerging Stronger Conversations, for Singaporeans young and old to come together, reflect on the COVID-19 crisis, and contribute their views on how Singapore can emerge from it stronger and more resilient. The conversations will lead to Singapore Together Action Networks – collaborations formed around the salient issues that emerge from the conversations – these too will reflect inter-generational involvement. There are other initiatives to encourage meaningful connections between the young and the old, and which recognise how our ageing population can still be a force for good when coupled with the strengths of our youth.”
“There needs to be some compliance with the Companies Act and different companies or different societies may have slightly different obligations to fulfil. But by and large the scheme is there, the regime is there. If you are able to take advantage of it because your own constitution allows for it, then you can do so. For the moment, our intention as I mentioned is to give certainty to companies who are planning for the year-end AGMs, some as far as six months down the road and we want them to know that they will be covered by the alternative arrangements. They can continue to make those arrangements and beyond that we will make an assessment. For the long term, we will study it and if this is something that is useful and workable, we will consider whether or not and to what extent we can incorporate that into a more permanent position. Sir, I think I have touched on all the questions and I wish to end by thanking Members for speaking despite this being late in the day at the end of a long week of debate. I thank you very much for your support and I look forward also to your continued support as we continue to refine the COIVD-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill. These are steps that we gather as we encounter situations on the ground and we react to it by introducing amendments from time to time to this Bill. I thank you all very much and I beg to move, Mr Deputy Speaker. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“So, I wish to assure Ms Sylvia Lim that this is being done already and if she is aware of any other cases which fall through the cracks, which require assistance, please do reach out to us and we will assist. Mr Vikram Nair asked some questions about SOPA – about the timing and the cash flow. We understand that SOPA is really designed to ensure that there is security of payment and cash flow is critical in the industry. The provisions in this Bill do not affect the timeline in SOPA. All we are saying is as long as you have got an application for determination filed under Part 8 of this Act, then do not duplicate the process by also asking for relief in SOPA and I think that is a fair position to take. You do not get two bites at the cherry for relief. As far as guidelines are concerned for Assessors and adjudicators, the same briefings, the same guidance we give to the current Assessors, we will also give to the SOPA adjudicators. Those who are given the same ambit of powers of discussion as the current PACT Assessors, they will also be given the same guidance. Finally, on alternative meeting arrangements, I thank the various Members. Mr Vikram Nair spoke about it, Mr Zhulkarnain also spoke about it and I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think if you are asking for this on a permanent basis, it cannot be quite a bad thing. So, I thank the Members for that. I just want to point out that actually under the Companies Act, as long as the constitutional documents or the memorandum and articles of the company or the relevant organisation, provides for it, then you can, in fact, already hold your meetings in a non-physical manner.”
“Based on these numbers, we expect that it does cover a fair number and if one is holding to the properties that exceeds the median annual value of commercial properties in Singapore, then you might not qualify or you would not qualify for the scheme. I would not say it captures everyone, but by and large in hardship cases, you are likely to fall within this framework, you will get the relief from the Assessors and the landlords, those who think that they can qualify, should apply for assessment by the Assessors. On top of that, as we have explained, and as Mr Shanmugam explained when this Bill was introduced in June, there are also other softer measures, such as the bank loans and forbearance and other measures that working through MAS, the banks have offered. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about process timing and whether parties who filed appeals or filed applications out of time, whether or not that would be taken against them. The short answer is absolutely not. We look at the substance of the case and the merits of the case. The Registrar has a discretion to accept applications out of time and will do so as long as there is merit in the application, there is good reason and it is not a frivolous reason. In addition our officers also often receive requests for clarification, either on the phone or in person or online. On occasion our officers also proactively assist the applicants in form filling or in explaining the process and procedure so that they will be able to have their applications either for rental relief or for landlords' additional relief to be heard by the Assessors.”
“We have also used community means, through organisations on the ground, using business associations, giving them the materials. And, ultimately, if they do have questions after all of this, we do have a team; it has been highly stretched but we do have a team that sits and takes calls and explains and also walks through the process. Later on, when I address Ms Lim's points about timing and about not being too strict, I will also explain further what else our officers do to assist in this programme. Mr Murali Pillai asked about some landlords who may have financial difficulty and may face difficulties themselves. Let me first explain the operation of the waiver system. The Government puts up the first one or two months, depending on whether it is industrial/office or commercial property. So, one month for industrial/office and two months for commercial. The tenants will enjoy a further additional rental relief of one or two months correspondingly, if they are able to demonstrate a 35% drop in revenue in the comparable period; and absent anything else it will be April and May 2019 against April and May 2020. You compare that and if you have a 35% drop, the additional relief kicks in. It is only the additional relief that the landlords are obliged to bear. In the scenario where you might find a retiree landlord or a small landlord whose annual takings from rental income is a substantial portion of the annual income – 75% in this case – then that person can also apply for relief. The qualifier there is as long as you do not hold properties where the annual value is more than $60,000. We fix it at 60,000 because that is the median annual value of commercial properties in Singapore.”
“Mr Louis Ng will know from the Act, it mandates the landlord to pass a copy of the notice to tenants within four working days. We have prescribed that but, obviously, there are also roughness at the edges – some might not know that they have received it, some might be unable to find their tenant for a period of time. They may not be operating their business and so on. So, we understand that and all that is taken into account. But there is a default framework that applies absent anything else. So four days to pass down the notice. And after the notice of cash grant is received by the property owner, he is also required by law to pass a copy to his tenant and the framework is designed, as I mentioned earlier, in this case, once you receive the notice, then the waivers will kick in. Finally, Mr Louis Ng also raised the point about information and education. I think it is a highly relevant point. The whole idea is for people to understand what the framework provides for and to be able to use the framework in a way which applies to them. We have put up the usual infographics, we have explained it as best as we can, we have also taken to having a dedicated website just to explain this and put all the materials at one place. Both Minister Shanmugam and myself have conducted several webinars and sessions, in some cases, face-to-face, some cases on online portals to explain this to people who then pass on the information. For example, we have sat down with several merchants associations and federations so that they in turn can pass down the information to their members and in that way disseminate it. So, we try as best as we can to plug into these networks and try and explain and give information.”
“So, in total, these are the two components which make up the grants given in respect of the rental relief framework. It is worth noting that both components of the Government support are calculated based on the annual value of the property and that might not exactly be the same amount of the rental waivers that individual landlords provide. As I have mentioned earlier, the annual value is the approximated annual return that the property is expected to fetch. But what the market or what the landlord might get out of that particular property might well be different. So, there is that possibility of discrepancy. And the other, of course, is the waivers are only in respect of the base rent or contractual rent and not the service and utility charges. Mr Louis Ng raised several concerns in his usual quickfire fashion and I will try and replicate a quickfire response. First, on the construct of the scheme and whether tenants are aware or not aware, and whether it is easy to use. We did receive some feedback that in having to pass down the property tax rebate from the Government to landlord, landlord to tenants, there might be some friction in that process, which is why this scheme that we have designed that was passed in June does not rely on that "passing the parcel" as it were, but simply by way of notification from IRAS. Once that notification kicks in, then it applies by way of waivers. So, it is not so much what you have to pass down but rather what the tenants do not have to pay for the relevant period. So, it is deliberately designed in this way to ensure that, as far as possible, no active step needs to be taken by the tenant. Second, Mr Louis Ng asked what if landlords are either slow or failed to inform their tenants. We have a framework that is set in place.”
“So, we do that judiciously and we always have to keep an eye on whether or not it is appropriate, what is the right level of intervention and whether, in the first place, the circumstances require that intervention. So, we will monitor that carefully to make an assessment based on prevailing circumstances, whether that is still necessary. But I just want to cite, for the Member's information, that we have seen a general downward trend in the number of Notifications For Reliefs that have been filed. From July to August, compared to May and June, we have seen a downward trend. This suggests to us that either the number of cases has been coming down in terms of the disputes or, as I have postulated at the start, the cases have come down partly also because there is not even a need to file an NFR, given that the framework has become a little bit better socialised to the public and people know what the framework provides for and, therefore, can negotiate on their own accord outside of the NFR regime altogether. So, we will monitor that, together with the prevailing circumstances, to assess whether or not we need to extend the moratorium. Mr Murali Pillai also asked about the total value of the rental rebate that the commercial, industrial and office tenants have received and what is the estimated additional rental rebate. The Government's assistance for the rental relief component comprises both the property tax rebate for 2020 and also the cash grant from the Government. The property tax rebate for the 2020 period amounts to about $1.8 billion and the cash grant component, as announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng at the Fortitude Budget, is about $2 billion.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of this Bill and I will just very quickly jump into the questions that have been raised and deal with them directly. Mr Murali Pillai asked how many assessors have been appointed and what steps have been taken to ensure that they perform their duties well and how are they trained for that. As of 4 September 2020, a total of 298 assessors have been appointed to the PACT Registry and the rental relief panel. As I have explained earlier, we do have regular discussions with them – myself, Minister Shanmugam and also the MinLaw officers. In that way, we keep a parity and we ensure that the decisions are also consistent with each other across the different panels. There are 12 panels and each of them is headed by a senior District Judge from the State Courts. That is how the cases are administered. The MinLaw team also conducts daily check-in sessions with the PACT Registry to provide guidance on the cases filed. So, not only on the cases that have been looked at or assessed, but the cases filed, to get a sense as to whether or not there needs to be improvement to the way in which we administer and operationalise the way in which the registry functions. Mr Murali Pillai also asked whether there have been plans to extend the moratorium order under the current Act, which is due to expire on 19 October 2020 and how such a possible extension might be balanced against the interests of both parties. In answering the second question, first, we have to bear in mind that, as I have said, it is intrusive to step in to intervene into parties' contracts.”
“Yes, Madam. Yes, certainly as I mentioned earlier, this is something that is within the factors that we will consider. I want to emphasise that we need to look at why we do something and the purpose and objective of the policy. Within that, I think we have acknowledged that it is an intrusive social policy. It has always been looked at as a balancing mechanism at ensuring that we do not tilt in favour of one side more so than another. It is a factor of looking at the balance rather than the individual specifics and making sure that we achieve the overall balance and objective that I outlined.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, yes, Ms Lim did acknowledge the concerns that the Government has in dealing with this problem, dealing with this issue, and also acknowledged that this is not something that we can change overnight. In fact, I think I heard her say in her speech that some believe we may never get there as well. But nonetheless, it is a process that has to constantly evolve and certainly the minds are not closed to this conversation. That is why I have pitched in my speech that we must continue to have active discourse, civic participation, gain new ideas and constantly look at the problem. To the Member's third point – whether or not there are difficulties, economic or otherwise, with the problem, it is something that we have worked into the system and into the scheme for some time. It is a question of the priorities that we wish to put but also at the same time, some of these difficulties can form the conversations that we discuss – look at the trade-offs, look at the balances that we have to put in place and weave that into our discussion as to whether something ought to be changed, something ought to be tweaked. But not at any one point in time forgetting that the overarching and overriding concerns that we have is that we must build a nation that respects each race, that each race has a place at the table and that every race must be encouraged to and indeed share the common Singapore identity. That is the overarching and overriding purpose. Within that constraint, we can have the conversations that Ms Lim spoke about. We can look at the priorities that she spoke about and we can look at the different considerations. I want to assure Ms Lim that the minds are not closed on these issues.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to end by returning to the basics of what makes Singapore, well, Singapore. Our country has been forged from our shared belief in the tenets of democracy, multi-culturalism, multiracialism, religious harmony, rule of law and meritocracy. Our security framework ensures our political existence as a nation while our economic activity supports our physical prosperity. These two are critical but are in themselves insufficient for our long-term survival as a sovereign and thriving city state. There is always that something more, something abstract that makes our nation great. In our case, I think it is the heart and spirit of Singapore which is embodied by the Singapore Tapestry – a tapestry that is woven out of diversity and adversity, its colours brightened by the idealism and energy of our youth, its threads tightly bound by a shared sense of community, culture and, ultimately, destiny. To our youths, I want to say this. Do not stop dreaming and never lose that youthful sense of optimism. This is not a lost generation despite what some have said. This, in fact, is a generation of opportunity. Whether you want to be an engineer or a dancer, a sports man or woman, a doctor or a content creator, stay true and committed to your goals. We will work with you to realise your dreams. And one day, you can look back and tell your own kids of how mom and dad overcame the crisis of a generation. How did they do that? By uniting with fellow Singaporeans and by leaving behind a more beautiful and tightly knitted Tapestry as a legacy for generations of Singaporeans to come. Madam, I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“It is about accepting that there is always going to be some give and take, and appreciating that everyone is entitled to their own positions as long as those positions do not encroach on another group's right to also have a position, albeit a different one, and perhaps even one that you might disagree with. Inclusiveness is about acceptance and appreciation and not about changing others to something in your own image. This requires a certain maturity of thought in order for a meaningful discourse to take place. It also requires common values that anchor the social compact between Singaporeans as well as between the Government and the people. The Singapore Tapestry that I spoke of can magically enlarge the space that we share beyond the physical limitations of our small, tiny city-state island, and it mysteriously also deepens the roots of our young country. It exists beyond the realms of material goods, physical infrastructure and GDP growth. And so I return to the discussion on the pillars of MCCY. The four pillars of MCCY may be more software than hardware but they play a big part in holding the Singapore Tapestry together. Sports, arts, culture and a shared heritage are the avenues which help connect people and lead us to a better understanding of ourselves and of who and where we are in our community. In this vein, MCCY will play a part in this journey of deepening our roots and increasing our common spaces so that a more inclusive and caring Singapore will come into being. Our SG Arts Plan, SG Heritage Plan and Sports Vision 2030 are just some of the master plans that MCCY will be working on with Singaporeans from all walks of life to build a better home together.”