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 30 of 45.
“This might be the simplest and neatest method of satisfying the requirement, although in some jurisdictions, including in Singapore, it is not the practice to do so. It is not the practice to include the mediator as a party to the agreement. In other words, on occasion, if the parties subsequently disagree on the terms, it should not be open to the parties to call the mediator as a witness to come and give a testimony as to what actually transpired. So, for that reason, mediators generally do not sign off on the mediated agreement itself. But as Prof Fatimah Lateef correctly points out, there are other options that this Bill has made available, other mechanisms by which this can be done. One option is that separate document that I mentioned earlier, signed by the mediator who conducted it. If none of these available options can be used to prove, then parties can rely on clause 6(1)(b)(iv), which states that "any other evidence" acceptable to the authority before which the application is made can be used. So, it might well be a combination of emails, something in writing, something verbal, which goes towards proving that the mediation took place and that this agreement arose as a result of those discussions and negotiations. On the requirement for a certified English translation of a settlement agreement drafted in a foreign language to be provided to the Court, Prof Fatimah Lateef asked whether the Bill will provide for a list of approved translators globally. Consistent with the usual practice of proceedings in our Courts, parties are free to engage their own qualified translators for the translation for the purposes of clause 6(4) of the Bill.”
“In Singapore, applications under the Bill are to be made to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal, as appropriate. Prof Fatimah Lateef asked how parties can prove that the settlement agreement was a result of mediation. I believe Mr Christopher de Souza also raised this point earlier. It is not uncommon for parties to discuss and come to a resolution through various channels. So, in other words, where there is a dispute, one does not just sit down and say, "Okay, listen, this is a mediation. Let's start". Often, there is a series of informal discussions, maybe exchange in writing sometimes or over meetings. This can happen for a period of time before arriving at an agreement through the mediation. Where the dispute is eventually resolved through these steps and recorded in the form of an agreement at a mediation session, the Bill will be applicable, subject to the other conditions of the Bill being met. The onus is on the party seeking to make an application under the Bill to prove that requirements under clause 6(1)(b), which I have mentioned a little while ago, that the settlement agreement resulted from mediation, and that these conditions have been complied with. For instance, such evidence can be in the form of a document signed by the mediator conducting the mediation indicating that such a mediation was carried out. On this note, Prof Fatimah Lateef raised the concern about the mediator having to sign the settlement agreement. In line with Article 4(1) of the Convention, the requirements set out in clause 6(1)(b) are not exhaustive. The first option for demonstrating that the agreement resulted from mediation is, of course, the mediator’s signature on the mediated agreement itself.”
“This could become an issue if a foreign court is faced with an application for the enforcement or invocation of agreements that might otherwise be contrary to its own laws and public policy of that particular jurisdiction. That said, Mr Patrick Tay might wish to know that family disputes and related international mediated agreements are currently being considered by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, on whether there is scope for an international instrument to be developed for such matters. So, that might well happen, but perhaps within a differentiated set of rules, given the public policy considerations I have mentioned earlier. Mr Patrick Tay also asked if the Bill will cover intellectual property (IP) rights. The Bill covers all settlement agreements from mediations to resolve a commercial dispute. The Working Group agreed not to define the term "commercial" but left it to interpretation and further agreed that it should be capable of being given a wide interpretation. Often, one finds that a dispute can raise multifaceted issues, it is not often easy to pigeonhole into one category or another. Hence, so long as the settlement agreement pertaining to or touching on IP rights relates to matters arising from a commercial dispute, then it can fall within the scope of the Bill. Prof Fatimah Lateef asked if the courts of signatory countries will handle the applications for the Convention. The answer is yes. The Convention provides for a competent authority designated by a party to handle and hear applications brought under the Convention in that country. This is not limited to the courts of a country, and other bodies deemed suitable and competent by that country could also be designated.”
“This, however, does not mean that when a settlement agreement has been recorded as a Court order under the Bill, for the purposes of enforcement or invocation in Singapore, that parties to the agreement would thereafter be precluded from presenting the same agreement in another jurisdiction for enforcement. So, I just want to make this clear, that in coming to Court in Singapore, adhering to the process under this Bill, for the purposes of enforcing or invoking the settlement agreement, does not preclude you from taking this agreement to another jurisdiction and then complying with the domestic procedures and laws, and also then enforcing it in that jurisdiction. Mr Patrick Tay asked for the reasons behind the Bill being limited to commercial matters and why the Bill does not extend to agreements concluded for family, inheritance or employment disputes. The Convention, which the Bill seeks to implement, itself excludes disputes in relation to "family, inheritance or employment law". The rationale of that is because it is consistent with the UN Commission on International Trade Law's (UNCITRAL's) mandate to focus on commercial disputes and commercial matters. In fact, in its deliberations on the draft Convention text, commercial disputes were the main focus of the Working Group. The Working Group decided that settlement agreements dealing with family and labour law matters and other areas where party autonomy might be limited due to overriding mandatory rules or public policy, should be excluded from the scope of the Convention. Further, in matters, such as family and employment law, domestic laws and public policy considerations often differ from one country to another.”
“This provides businesses and investors with the certainty upfront that their cross-border transactions, which subsequently result in a dispute, which can then be mediated, can be easily and, in my view, more effectively enforced, if one is able to discern how and where to go, depending on the assets located of the counter party. A party is also not limited to seeking enforcement under the Convention in just one jurisdiction. As I explained in my speech yesterday, obtaining an order of Court under this Bill for the purposes of the enforcement does not extinguish the underlying mediated agreement. Either party to the mediated settlement agreement is at liberty to continue using the settlement agreement for enforcement or invocation in another jurisdiction which is a party to the Convention. So, you can go and seek enforcement of the mediated agreement in different jurisdictions, but provided that these different jurisdictions are Convention jurisdictions. This is also subject, as in all cases, to the jurisdiction's own domestic procedures for enforcement and invocation. In other words, other countries will have their own process as we have set out in this Bill, and compliance with that process must be adhered to, which is not uncommon. Article 1(3)(a) of the Convention excludes settlements that have been approved by the Court or concluded in the course of proceedings before a Court. In other words, sometimes, in the course of Court proceedings, you have a settlement agreement that arises in the context of that, this Bill does not apply to those agreements.”
“When the Bill is passed and enters into force, agreements which are of a commercial and international in nature, and which fulfil the requirements of the Bill, will be enforceable under the Bill's framework. Mr Louis Ng noted quite rightly that as part of the civil justice reforms, the enforcement process of civil judgments in Singapore is currently under review. He asked how this review will affect the processes under this Bill. Under the Bill, an application for recognition of the international settlement agreement has to be applied for through the Court process. I have outlined that earlier when I made the speech yesterday. One of the objectives of the civil justice reforms is to enhance the efficiency of the Court procedures and this would also help the process under this Bill because the processes will be streamlined, enhanced and made more efficient. Prof Fatimah Lateef had asked whether an international settlement agreement resulting from mediation can be enforced under the Convention regardless of its place of origin, and whether a party seeking to enforce such an agreement can do so in the state where the other party has a majority of its assets. This is a classic enforcement issue that almost all lawyers face when they look at how to or where to enforce an award or order. The answer to Prof Fatimah Lateef's question is yes and, indeed, that is the value behind the Convention. A party can choose which jurisdiction it wishes to bring an application under the Convention, provided that the jurisdiction is a party to the Convention. Obviously so, because it can be enforced only against the party in a Convention jurisdiction.”
“This month, they will be organising a Mediation Advocacy Competition for contestants to pit their advocacy skills to further their client's interests in collaborative mediation settings – real-life settings but students have a chance to apply what they have been taught and put into practice in as realistic a setting as possible. SIMI and SIMC also provide internships for students interested in deepening their own understanding of mediation and how it applies in practice. Mr Patrick Tay asked about the views and concerns of the legal fraternity and the business community in response to the Bill. In some ways, the response from the legal community to what I have outlined over the last couple of minutes, from attending the Convention to the training, to coming forward to serve as specialist mediators, they all tell us that the legal community and the businesses one sees value in mediation. Stakeholders, including the legal fraternity, dispute resolution institutions, businesses that we consulted, welcomed the Bill. MinLaw also conducted several engagement sessions with professional bodies, business associations and students, and received very positive feedback for which we are very heartened. On the international front, the adoption of the Convention by the UN General Assembly, Singapore's signing of the Convention and the other countries indicating that they would wish to ratify the Convention as soon as they can, they all bode well and they give us good reason to be quietly optimistic that the Convention will be ratified by more countries, and also its application to businesses across different jurisdictions to promote international trade. Prof Fatimah Lateef asked if an agreement arising from mediation will now be enforceable under the Bill. The answer is yes.”
“On thought leadership, the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) was established as a platform for thought leadership in dispute resolution theory, practice and policy, and this includes, of course, the area of mediation as well. SIDRA strengthens Singapore’s thought leadership in this area through its research projects, such as its Singapore Convention on Mediation research project, which produced the first commentary on the Convention, and the International Dispute Resolution Survey research project, which captured respondents’ considerations in the use of international commercial dispute resolution, including arbitration, mediation and litigation. On law students, which Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned, we have not forgotten them. I think Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned that SIMI organised the inaugural International Mediation Singapore moot. That involved 140 students from 30 different universities from around the world. It was the first international moot organised in Singapore that focuses on mediation advocacy. This year, in conjunction with what I mentioned earlier on the “Singapore Convention Week” in September this year, we will also have the second instalment of this programme. To further develop students’ interest in mediation, NUS, SMU and SUSS law students are provided with electives and modules on mediation. SIMI supported the founding of, and continues to advise, the NUS Collaborative Dispute Resolution (CDR) Club, a dedicated club for law students to organise activities related to CDR, such as selections for international competitions, events, seminars and also hosting actual competitions for students.”
“SIMC and SMC, which are two of the designated mediation service providers under the Mediation Act 2017, have established panels of mediators with broad expertise in very diverse fields. SIMC’s panel has about 70 international mediators from more than 20 jurisdictions across a spectrum of civil and common law backgrounds. They have expertise in different fields as well, different subject matters, which are important because, whilst a dispute might centre around the law, the subject matter of the dispute might well come from different spectrums of society and different aspects of business transactions. Knowledge, know-how and thought leadership are important drivers for mediation as a practice. And to this end, our institutions regularly conduct courses to equip Singapore lawyers and other professionals as well with mediation knowledge and skills. Recently, in November last year, SIMC conducted a two-day specialist training workshop for 24 senior practitioners from Singapore. They include senior counsel, managing partners and partners of law firms in Singapore, general counsel of multinational corporations located in Singapore and also other large companies, and SIMC subsequently appointed them as specialist mediators in January this year. SIMC will be looking to conduct more runs of such specialist training workshops for lawyers, inhouse counsel and other business professionals, the thinking behind that being that it is not just within the province and domain of lawyers to conduct and run mediations but rather that if we bring the skill inhouse into the business environment, then it is more likely that mediation will be taken up as an option, and also, would be able to locate such expertise within the business itself to catch hold of the dispute as early as possible.”
“Thus far, SIMI – the institute – has conducted "Mediation In Practice" seminars for professionals in the healthcare and built environment sectors – two sectors which we believe will benefit from the usage of mediation – and will continue to conduct seminars for other sectors as well. Mr Christopher de Souza also specifically asked about MinLaw’s efforts to build capability, interest and thought leadership with regard to mediation generally amongst mediation institutions, amongst Singapore lawyers and law students. Let me come to this. But before I do so, I think Mr Christopher de Souza noted that clause 6(1)(b)(iii) requires that the mediation be administered by an institution and not merely by a certified mediator. I would just like to add that the requirements in 6(1)(b) are disjunctive. There are several limbs to the clause and they are all disjunctive. Hence, the Bill caters to both administered and unadministered mediations. Clause 6(1)(b)(ii), for instance, provides that an attestation by the institution that administered the mediation is only one of the ways in which a settlement agreement can be evidenced to have resulted from a mediation. Alternatively, the mediator’s signature on the agreement or some other document, not necessarily on the mediated agreement or any other evidence acceptable to the Court, will also suffice. In other words, clause 6(1)(b) provides for a broad spectrum of different options by which the Court might then gain insight as to whether there is evidence supporting the contention that this agreement has arisen from mediation. Singapore’s mediation institutions have built a strong pool of qualified mediators and practitioners and this started even before the Convention was inked last year.”
“Several Members have already touched on these benefits, which include time and cost efficiency, greater party autonomy and control over the resolution of the disputes, how they frame disputes, how they frame the settlement of the disputes and the terms and conditions which go behind such agreements. Mediation also protects confidentiality between the parties and, ultimately, also preserves a relationship which may have taken years, if not decades, to build. And that is the overarching benefit in engaging mediation as a method of resolving disputes. And I would agree with Members that these factors add to the reasons why we believe that mediation is growing as one of the key dispute resolution options. Mr Douglas Foo made an important point when he spoke about the importance of educating the business community of the benefits of mediation and of how these reforms can impact them positively. I agree, and the efforts to raise awareness of the Convention and of mediation in particular, must be an ongoing and long-term one, and we are committed to doing so. Let me just share with Members some of the steps we have been taking. MinLaw and our Singapore mediation institutes which many Members have mentioned – the SIMC, SIMI which is the mediation institute – have taken active steps in the community to raise awareness of the Convention. MinLaw has been actively promoting the Convention and its benefits to the legal and business communities and to schools through conferences, seminars, workshops and other outreach efforts. SIMC has been conducting briefing sessions in conjunction with organisations, such as the Law Society and Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, to reach out to the legal profession and to the industry players and they will continue to do so.”
“On our end, what we have done is we have offered to host workshops for those other countries interested in finding out about the Convention, what it takes to have that implemented in their own domestic laws and also to be able to assist where required in their ratification processes as well. The next Singapore Convention Conference is scheduled to be held in Singapore in September 2020, in conjunction with a Singapore Convention Week of events. So, a series of other related events, conferences, sessions, including the competition that Mr Christopher de Souza spoke about earlier will take place in September 2020. This will also include workshops for interested government officials, legal and business communities, academics and, of course, students from around the world, and this will provide participants with an insight into the Convention and sharing information and thought leadership on the latest developments in not just mediation but also the broader realm of dispute resolution. We are overall hopeful that the Convention will come into force soon. Mr Patrick Tay asked if we foresee an increase in disputes resolved as a result of the Bill. Well, that is certainly the intention behind the Bill and the Convention. With the introduction of a framework to simplify the process for enforcement and invocation of international settlement agreements, we do expect to see an increase in the number of disputes resolved in accordance with this Bill, and slowly, with the proliferation of mediation, increasingly as a viable option for resolving disputes, and also under the Domestic Mediation Act.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their broad support of the Bill as well as for the overall affirmation of the key role in which mediation can play and will be playing in the context of Singapore's bid to have first-class international dispute resolution services and to maintain our status as a key hub for such services. Let me get straight to addressing the queries raised by Members, starting with some broad overarching points as to the Convention and also as to the architecture of the Bill. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the progress of ratification of the Convention by other states and when the Convention will come into effect. He also asked how Singapore has been engaging other countries in encouraging them to join us in seeking to first sign up to, and subsequently, ratify the Convention. As I outlined earlier, we require three states to ratify the Convention before the Convention becomes effective six months after the third state has deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN. Singapore hopes to be amongst the first countries to do so. The overwhelming show of support for the Convention on the day it opened for signature is itself encouraging, and this suggests many other countries share our view that mediation is increasingly prevalent and overall helpful to the conduct of international business transactions. This gives us a good basis to believe that the other states will also quickly ratify the Convention. We understand several other countries are taking active steps towards their own ratification process. Like us, they will have to go through their own internal process and approvals, such as enacting domestic legislation to implement the obligations contained in the Convention, before they subsequently ratify the Convention.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, under the bankruptcy regime, there are restrictions which are placed on a bankrupt's ability to travel and that is for good reason. It minimises and mitigates the risks of any dissipation of assets or any leakage in terms of the bankrupt's estate. Nonetheless, where a bankrupt is trying to look for a job, seek employment and perhaps that might require, say, for instance, travel overseas to attend an interview or it is part and parcel of his job to run an office overseas if that is part of his job requirement, then the Office Assignee's discretion will extend to allowing that travel to take place. The Member's second question is about the flexibility of the framework. As I explained in my opening remarks and the answer I gave earlier, we are looking at different options, both before bankruptcy as well as the differentiated framework after bankruptcy. That allows the Official Assignee to look at circumstances relevant to the particular bankrupt, as the case may be, for the purposes of this charge. Obviously, the conduct and the affairs of the estate for two bankrupts will not be the same. So, those factors will be looked at in terms of the differentiated discharge framework. As I mentioned earlier also, under the arrangement for DRS, the threshold will be raised from $100,000 to $150,000 and that will facilitate more persons coming into the scheme to avoid bankruptcy even before creditors make the claim against them.”
“Individual bankrupts who have made satisfactory contributions to their estate and who have been cooperative with the Insolvency Office during the administration of their bankruptcy are discharged expeditiously, so that they can have a fresh start in their financial affairs. The Insolvency Office routinely advises Singaporean bankrupts who require assistance on employment on the available avenues for help. Such avenues include Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). And through the Adapt and Grow initiative, WSG and e2i offer employment facilitation services, such as career coaching, employability workshops, job fairs and job matching. They also provide a suite of employment support programmes to help jobseekers, including bankrupts, take up new jobs and careers. All employers in Singapore are expected to practise fair and merit-based employment practices, as laid out in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. Where there are specific requirements to ask for an applicant's bankruptcy status at point of application, employers should state the reasons, which must be job-related. This may be necessary for some jobs, for example, those in the financial industry, where employees are required to be free from any financial embarrassment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the number of Singaporeans declared bankrupt each year has remained stable and averaged around 1,400 individuals between 2010 and 2018. In the same period, the average time taken for Singaporeans to exit bankruptcy is 9.7 years. The Ministry of Law has introduced various enhancements to the bankruptcy regime to help individuals avoid bankruptcy and also reduce the time taken for bankrupts to exit bankruptcy. The Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) introduced in 2009, for instance, allows individuals with steady employment and whose unsecured debt do not exceed $100,000 to avoid bankruptcy by developing a repayment plan over a period of time with their creditors. With the upcoming implementation of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, the cap will be raised from $100,000 to $150,000. This will allow more debtors to qualify for DRS and avoid bankruptcy with the consequent risk of losing their jobs. The Differentiated Discharge Framework (DDF), which was introduced in 2016, provides a more rehabilitative regime, with clear goals and timelines for the insolvent individual to meet to be discharged at various points. Under this framework, first-time bankrupts will generally be able to achieve discharge within a shorter timeframe of between five and seven years, if they cooperate by keeping to the conditions of bankruptcy and they also make the required contributions each time. For cases which pre-date DDF, the Insolvency Office has since 2014 stepped up efforts to actively review deserving bankruptcy cases for a timely discharge.”
“Parties may, however, agree through the terms of their settlement agreement, to opt out of the Convention. That is a choice given to the parties; you might decide that you wish to opt out of the modalities set out in the Convention. Finally, the Bill makes related amendments to the Mediation Act 2017, which I mentioned earlier, and also to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA). The related amendments to the Mediation Act 2017 provide that a settlement agreement within the scope of the Bill is not precluded from the Mediation Act 2017, if that settlement agreement also qualifies under that Act. In other words, it preserves a party's rights to go under the Mediation Act 2017 if you also qualify under the framework of that legislation. The amendments to SCJA provide the High Court with the jurisdiction to grant applications under the Bill. Sir, in conclusion, let me reiterate that in developing our dispute resolution regime, we have sought to provide businesses with a full suite of user-centric options to resolve their cross-border disputes, whether through litigation, arbitration or mediation. With the introduction of the Convention, it is anticipated that more businesses will seek to avail themselves of the benefits that the mediation process provides, as adoption of the Convention becomes more prevalent globally. This Bill is an essential instrument that will enable parties to benefit from the framework that is already set out in the Convention, and it is a significant step in our overall efforts to strengthen Singapore’s dispute resolution framework. Sir, with that, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Next, where there are existing proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, a party can apply to Court to invoke the settlement agreement as a defence, to prove that the matter in those proceedings had already been resolved by the settlement agreement, without the need to take out separate proceedings to rely on the agreement. This also helps save time and costs for parties. Lastly, parties’ legal rights and remedies existing outside of the Convention will be preserved. This means that parties can, for instance, continue to rely on contractual principles to enforce or invoke their settlement agreement, should they prefer this route. Next, clause 6 requires the applicant to provide certain documents and evidence to the Court with its application. The Court may also take into account an exhaustive list of grounds to refuse an application under clause 7. Where a settlement agreement has been recorded as an order of Court, clause 8 enables a party to apply to set aside the Court order under stipulated grounds. In clause 9, if there are parallel proceedings in another Court, tribunal or other competent authority, the Court hearing an application under the Bill may adjourn the hearing and order the other party to give suitable security for costs. This Bill does not currently implement either of the two reservations allowed under the Convention. The effect of this non-implementation of the reservation is that, firstly, the Convention and the Bill will apply to settlement agreements that the Government is a party to; and two, the Convention and the Bill will apply automatically to parties to a settlement agreement who may wish to enforce or invoke their agreement in a Singapore Court under the Convention.”
“With these options, parties have the flexibility to decide on the most appropriate mode for their own particular situation and circumstance. This will help them to assess the options better and also save time and costs. The Bill provides a "Court order mechanism" for parties seeking to enforce or invoke their settlement agreement. So, a party can apply to the High Court to record its settlement agreement as an order of Court, which can thereafter be used for the purposes of enforcement, or as I mentioned earlier, as a defence, as the case may be. The procedure and the framework are similar to the enforcement of awards under the International Arbitration Act, which the legal and business communities would already be familiar with. It also provides greater certainty if future reliance on the settlement agreement is necessary. For the avoidance of doubt, the process of obtaining a Court order under the Bill does not extinguish the underlying mediated settlement agreement. It preserves the status of the underlying mediated agreement. So, it is still an agreement after all, even if one chooses to invoke the Court process for the purposes of enforcement or to raise it as a defence. Either party to the mediated settlement agreement is at liberty to use the underlying settlement agreement for enforcement or invocation in another country, which is a party to the Convention, which is precisely why there is such a Convention – for cross-border enforcement of the mediated settlement agreement. This, of course, will be subject to that country's own procedures for enforcement and/or invocation.”
“In putting together these provisions, the mechanism and also the framework, we consulted various industry stakeholders, including international dispute resolution institutions and experts, and received their feedback, both in terms of the philosophy behind the enforcement and also the practical aspects of enforcement. The Bill is intended to operate in parallel with the Mediation Act 2017. That is the Act which Members will be familiar with, that deals with enforcement of mediated agreements domestically. It also preserves contractual remedies, with a view to giving commercial parties a broad suite of choices to enforce or choose to invoke their international mediated settlement agreements. The key features of the Bill include the following. The Bill relates to the cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements and the invocation of such agreements as a defence. In other words, if a party chooses to act and bring a claim in breach of a prior mediated settlement agreement to which the claim applies, then the agreement can also be invoked as a defence. It covers international settlement agreements resulting from mediation concluded by parties to resolve a commercial dispute. Agreements that are excluded from the Bill are those that (a) have been approved by a court or concluded in the course of court proceedings and are enforceable as judgments; (b) are enforceable as arbitral awards; and (c) relate to certain subject matters, such as family, inheritance and employment law. As mentioned, the Bill provides a range of options for parties seeking to enforce or invoke their settlement agreements in Singapore under the Convention. These are set out in clause 4 of the Bill.”
“There is, therefore, a need for an effective, efficient and harmonised framework to enforce cross-border commercial mediated settlement agreements. In response to this, the Convention puts in place a process for a party to enforce or invoke its settlement agreement in Court. It is simple to use and allows businesses to maximise the benefits of mediation. Businesses can have greater assurance and certainty that mediation can be relied on to settle cross-border commercial disputes. This, in turn, promotes investor and business confidence. The Convention, therefore, facilitates the administration of international transactions by commercial parties, and we are hopeful that the establishment of a framework for the enforcement of such agreements will contribute to the development of harmonious international economic relations. The Convention attained one of the highest numbers of first-day signatories for any UN trade convention, reflecting a recognition by the international community of the benefits that the Convention will bring. The signing of the Convention marks the start of a long-term commitment by Singapore to promote the Convention and its adoption. In order for the Convention and, therefore, this Bill to enter into force, at least three states must deposit their instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. The Convention will enter into force six months after the third state deposits its instrument. On Singapore’s part, we aim to be amongst the first countries to ratify the Convention and will take steps to do so once this Bill is passed and Presidential Assent is obtained. Let me now take Members through the key features of this Bill, which seeks to implement Singapore's obligations under the Convention.”
“It is attractive for businesses which wish to resolve their commercial disputes with an outcome that is mutually acceptable to both sides whilst preserving their long-term relationships and leaving open the possibility of working together in future. The conciliatory nature of mediation reduces the instances where a dispute leads ultimately to a complete termination of commercial relationships. Mediation, therefore, complements other modes of dispute resolution, as it can be used in conjunction with litigation or arbitration, and increasingly, it often is embedded into the system and it appears in both types of dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation has grown in popularity and use. A survey of participants at the 2016 Global Pound Conference found that a majority believed a greater emphasis on collaborative over adversarial process is a trend that will have the most significant influence on the future of commercial dispute resolution. However, with all of that, the one key challenge that has been hindering the growth and adoption of mediation is the oft-cited difficulty faced by a party in ensuring that its counter-party, that is, the party with whom it enters into a settlement agreement, complies with the terms of the agreement. While a mediated settlement agreement is contractually binding, it is not itself directly enforceable in the Courts, unlike a Court judgment or an arbitral award. This difficulty was also highlighted by the 2016 Global Pound Conference survey, where 51% of respondents indicated that legislation or conventions that promote the recognition and enforcement of settlements, including those reached in mediation, would most improve commercial dispute resolution.”
“This is the first treaty named after Singapore among those concluded under the auspices of the UN, and bears testament to our extensive contributions to the development of international commercial mediation globally. On 7 August 2019, the Singapore Convention Signing Ceremony and Conference was held in Singapore. Singapore hosted more than 1,500 delegates from 70 countries at the event. Forty-six countries signed the Convention on the day it opened for signature, while another 24 countries attended the signing ceremony to show their support for the Convention. The signatories included the world's two largest economies, the US and China; three of Asia's four largest economies, namely, China, India and South Korea; and five of 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, that is, Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. The overwhelming response and turnout at the event were a powerful statement in support of multilateralism and a rules-based international order. Subsequently, six other countries signed onto the Convention at the UN headquarters in New York, bringing the total number of signatories to the Convention today to 52. Second, on a more specific level, the Convention is the missing third piece in the international dispute resolution enforcement framework, as many businesses today rely either on arbitration, enforced via the New York Convention, or on litigation, for cross-border disputes. Mediation is rising in popularity due to a growing recognition of its benefits. It is cost-effective, flexible, efficient and also confidential. It allows parties to retain control over the outcome of their disputes. They control and, in fact, design the architecture of the terms on which they come and reach a settlement on their dispute.”
“In the same vein, the Singapore Convention Signing Ceremony and Conference held in August last year was an important milestone for Singapore’s efforts in developing the dispute resolution landscape on at least two levels. First, on a broader level, the Convention demonstrated Singapore’s thought leadership in international rule of law efforts and helped raise our position as an international dispute resolution hub to a new level. Let me bring Members briefly through the steps which gave rise to the Convention. In February 2018, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group on Dispute Settlement finalised the text of the Convention and the corresponding Model Law. Singapore contributed significantly to the development of the Convention at UNCITRAL. The Working Group was chaired by a Singaporean, and the Singapore delegation participated actively in the negotiations. Local industry experts were involved in shaping Singapore’s positions on the Convention and also played an active role in contributing to the final outcome. It took only three years between 2015 and 2018 to conclude an instrument dealing with enforcement of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, when several past attempts failed. This exhibited the Working Group’s dedication to constructive and open dialogue in the face of numerous delegations coming from different backgrounds and having different perspectives. This is really the same spirit of mediation that the Convention itself seeks to encourage. On 20 December 2018, the UN General Assembly, in a momentous decision, adopted the Convention. It also authorised the signing of the Convention to be held in Singapore and authorised the Convention to be known henceforth as the “Singapore Convention on Mediation”.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill implements the United Nations (UN) Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation. One of Singapore’s strengths lies in our being a vibrant international business and commercial hub that is open and connected to the world. We must continue to be so, to ensure that our economy remains vibrant and growing, amidst global uncertainties and disruptions. Against this backdrop, one key area of focus in my Ministry's work has been to strengthen Singapore's legal and dispute resolution framework, to better serve the needs of international businesses that use Singapore as a base for their international commercial transactions. Singapore is one of the leading cross-border dispute resolution centres in the world and undergirding this is our trusted legal system and the strong rule of law. We also provide a comprehensive suite of international dispute resolution services to meet the varying needs of businesses. These include litigation, arbitration and, increasingly, mediation. As part of efforts to strengthen our dispute resolution ecosystem, Singapore has invested in the development of international commercial mediation, including through building up institutions, developing capabilities and also updating our laws. For instance, the Mediation Act was enacted in 2017 to establish a framework for mediation, and to provide a more conducive environment in Singapore for international commercial mediation.”
“So, if we are able to have a platform where producers, manufacturers can take advantage of and protect the GIs, then certainly, we will encourage them to do so and to see what further assistance can be offered so that there will be even more Singapore producers beyond the examples that Mr Christopher de Souza and myself have outlined, which are illustrative only, I might add. Sir, I will agree with the Members that the general point is that GIs continue to be relevant, and maybe even increasingly relevant to Singaporean businesses, as they add assurance to the unique flavour and identity and, of course, also authenticity of the product. And the system that we have set up, put in place about a year ago, and now enhanced with these amendments, is designed to further all of these. The changes that are being introduced reflect our continual effort to look at, update and enhance the IP regime and provide a fair and transparent GI regime. This, we believe, will further enhance our reputation as the IP hub of the region. Sir, with that, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“The suggestion that there may be a set-up that is used, funded by GI rights holders so that there can be a proper categorisation by brands and so on, is something we can consider. I think that is a useful suggestion insofar as it takes the debate further on how branding can be better organised, how there can be searches and ultimately leading to better enforcement and policing of those rights. The second point Mr Leon Perera raised which I agreed with earlier is that this entire platform that the GI Act has created is indeed useful for Singapore producers because Singapore producers can then leverage our own geographical location and, indeed, there are several special places within Singapore whose names are very well associated with certain types of foods. And, to that extent, that can be used. Mr Leon Perera asked what is the breakdown for local applications. I do not have the number at hand but I will check and revert to Mr Perera. Will the Government consider working with these producers? Certainly. What we do see is that the reforms that we make, not just in this Bill itself but generally in the context of the IP space, we see this as an opportunity for local producers, local companies to take advantage of the laws that we set up. As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, we ensure that the laws that we set up have, in other words, to be very much pro-business and centred on the needs of the user.”
“The new Limitation of Scope process is dealt with by the Courts and not by the Registrar. And as Mr Christopher de Souza knows, it is common for the GIs around the world to be based on similar facts and issues. There may be competing interests; there may be disputes on the factual circumstances and matrix which give rise to the GI and they often involve similar, if not identical parties, as Mr Christopher de Souza will know. Therefore, there may be decisions by foreign courts which would provide guidance and, indeed, it would also guide the nature of the decision in Singapore and vice versa. And in this context, it will be an opportunity for Singapore jurisprudence to be used in other countries as well. Given the above, the Courts, we feel, will be better placed to adjudicate on these matters. Mr Christopher de Souza also asked about "Lion City Apples" and the use of the nickname and the circumstances under which the nickname for a place would be recognised as a variant of a GI, and under what circumstances that nickname could then be accepted. For a variant to be registered in Singapore, just as it is with any application for registration of a GI in Singapore, the applicant seeking to register a variant must show that the variant has obtained recognition or registration as a GI in its country of origin. This would be done as part of the application for registration process before the Registrar of GIs. As for Mr Leon Perera's queries, the Singapore consumer obviously would also rely on the similar processes to ensure that there is no improper usurpation of the name. And that each time a GI is registered, there will be a thorough, exhaustive review of the circumstances giving rise to the claim for that particular GI.”
“I thank the two Members who have spoken, supporting the amendments and also speaking up in favour of using the GIs. The GI system that is being set up – and you have seen it operate in the last year or so – is obviously designed to achieve the purposes for which Mr Leon Perera has outlined: to give a platform to recognise local producers, to give a basis on which to differentiate and to distinguish food products in particular, and to operate a system on which you can say that something is domain to the location and that, in itself, is a distinguishing feature. And so, the purpose of this regime is really to set up an environment that promotes all of these and allows protection to be given to producers so that they can then leverage on the GI, or rather, the name of a product linked to the geographical location, in the context of Mr Leon Perera's point in Singapore as well. Let me just address the queries that have been raised. Mr Christopher de Souza asked why the process is being bifurcated into a pre- and a post-registration. This is something that I outlined earlier. But let me just reiterate the concept and also the paradigm by which this is to be operating. In handling these pending applications, it is in the interest of parties that the Registrar moves as quickly as possible to reach a registration decision, so that all parties are clear about the protection that is accorded. In this context, the Registrar that handles the pre-registration QoR request together with the GI application will enable an efficient and expedient processing of the matters. On the other hand, after the GI is registered, post-registration matters can be independently handled. We have, therefore, removed post-registration QoRs for registered GIs.”
“The changes I mentioned previously providing that a QoR request cannot be used to negate the registration of a GI or a variant, will also apply in the context of this new procedure for application for a Limitation of Scope of rights. The changes sought under the Bill, as they are technical in nature and generally straightforward, are targeted to be implemented by the first half of this year. Sir, in conclusion, these amendments will contribute to the continued smooth operations of the GI Registry, and provide also at the same time, greater clarity for traders and producers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“On the other hand, once a GI has been registered – and this is the post-registration – there is no specified timeframe for post-registration processes to be initiated. Each post-registration process can be independently managed. Further, GI disputes are often global in nature, with disputes around the world based on similar facts and issues. Given the desirability of taking into account the arguments and outcomes of disputes in other countries as well when determining a post-registration QoR request, we, therefore, feel that the Registrar might not be the best forum for the determination of such disputes, especially when there is no longer an efficiency gain in doing so, in the same way as I have explained the pre-registration process. The Bill, therefore, removes the post-registration QoR process. Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be disputes as to the scope of the protection conferred upon a registered GI post-registration. The Bill, therefore, provides that any post-registration applications for a limitation as to the scope of rights conferred in respect of a registered GI, will now be filed in and heard by the High Court, under a new judicial procedure called an application for a Limitation of Scope of rights in respect of a registered GI to be entered onto the Register. The scope of such applications, and the grounds on which such applications can be granted, are set out in the new section 48(a), inserted by clause 7 of the Bill. Having these issues dealt with by the Courts would also give the opportunity for Singapore decisions to be cited by Courts in other jurisdictions.”
“For example, a qualification of all the rights conferred in respect of a registered GI may not be requested on the basis that the GI or variant is identical with the common name of the goods concerned in Singapore, as such a QoR would result in there being no rights conferred on a registered GI that can be enforced in respect of the registered GI or variant. This, therefore, makes it very clear that the QoR regime and the opposition or cancellation regime remains separate and distinct. They are meant as two different sets of parameters and protocols meant to apply to obtain two different sets of remedies. Applicants seeking to negate the rights conferred under the Act in respect of a registered GI or variant will not be able to use a QoR request as a substitute for opposition or cancellation proceedings. Let me now touch on the third broad set of amendments which proposes further changes to the post-registration QoR process. Currently, QoR requests can be filed any time after the GI application is published. The requests are dealt with by the Registrar of GIs. However, in the course of operating the GI Registry, IPOS has found the need to treat pre-registration and post-registration QoR requests differently. Pre-registration QoR requests relate to GI applications which are still pending before the Registrar. It would be more efficient for the Registrar to handle all pre-registration processes together, whether oppositions or QoR requests. In this way, the application for registration can be handled as expediently as possible. This also ensures that the applicant as well as third parties can have clarity about the protected rights as soon as possible.”
“This is different from opposing the application for registration or applying to cancel the registration of a GI, whether in respect of one or all the variants, because the reason for opposition or cancellation is that the GI or variant should not be protected as a registered GI at all. The end result of a successful opposition or cancellation of the registration of a particular variant is that the variant is not allowed to be registered or is removed from the GI Register. If the opposition or cancellation was against the entire set of variants, the end result is that the entire set of variants is not registered or is removed from the GI Register. After the GI Registry commenced its operations, we found that certain types of QoR requests could achieve the same result as a successful opposition or cancellation. To illustrate the point, for instance, a QoR request could possibly be so broad as to result in a situation where the interested parties of a GI are effectively left with no rights in respect of a registered GI that they can enforce. This would render the GI registration nugatory. The QoR process was intended to enable an applicant to clarify the scope of protection conferred by the registration, and not to negate the GI registration altogether by wholly removing the rights conferred by registration. Clause 5 of the Bill, therefore, clarifies that a QoR may not be requested, if the QoR request seeks a qualification of all the rights to be conferred in respect of a registered GI.”
“The second set of amendments makes changes to the process for the entry of a Qualification of Rights in the Register. A request for a Qualification of Rights, or more commonly known as a QoR, to be entered in the Register, is a request usually taken up by a third party, in order to clarify the scope of protection that the GI Act confers on a registered GI, in relation to whether a name or a term contained in the GI or a term which may be a translation of the GI is available for use by the third party. To take up the example that I outlined earlier, let us say the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges applied for the registration of that GI for oranges, including all the variants which I have mentioned previously. Now, a Mr Wu Min Cheng, an individual who is a seller of oranges, he could request a QoR to be entered in the GI Register to state that he can rely on the exception in section 13 of the Act for the use of his personal name. If he is successful, he can continue to use the personal name, his personal name in relation to the oranges that he sells, even if these oranges are not of the Wu Min Cheng variety or originating from Pulau Ubin. However, the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges can prevent Mr Wu from using the other registered variants, such as "Ubin Oranges", for example, for selling his oranges. Such a QoR also does not affect the ability of the producers of Wu Min Cheng oranges from bringing an action against other producers for labelling their products as Wu Min Cheng oranges, in other words, producers other than Mr Wu.”
“The GI Registry has received a number of applications where, in a single application, multiple variants of the nature that I have described, constituting the same GI were included. This, no doubt, saved application fees for the applicant. These applications were accepted as-is and most of them have, in fact, been registered. It is proposed in this Act that we amend and clearly state how such applications and registrations with multiple variants should be treated. So, for example, in a situation where multiple variants of a GI have been registered, a party may want to apply to cancel the registration because he finds one of the variants objectionable. If he is successful, it is not clear whether the entire GI registration should be cancelled, or whether there should only be a partial cancellation, that is, only of the particular variant that he finds objectionable. Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the Bill, therefore, amend the GI Act to clarify the following. First, an application for registration can contain more than one variant constituting the same GI. Second, after an application for registration is accepted and published for public inspection, third parties who oppose the application can choose to oppose the registration of one or more of the variants in the application, instead of all of the variants. Third, where there is a refusal of registration of a variant, the other variants in the application for registration can nevertheless be registered if they satisfy the requirements of the Act. Finally, similarly, other processes, such as an application for cancellation of registration or a request for Qualification of Rights to be entered in the Register, need not be in respect of all the variants.”
“Producers and traders in respect of registered GIs also have access to border enforcement measures such as being able to request that our Customs authorities detain suspected infringing goods which are to be imported or exported from Singapore. The Bill makes technical amendments to the GI Act to address issues that have arisen in the course of running the GI Registry. The amendments will ensure the continued smooth operations of the GI Registry and also provide greater clarity for traders and producers. I will now take Members through the main features of the Bill. The first set of amendments in the Bill clarifies how variants of a GI are to be treated during the application process. A variant of a GI can be a translation, or a transliteration, or any other variation of the indication constituting the GI. Let me give a hypothetical example to illustrate. Say, for example, that oranges grown on Pulau Ubin are known to bear a unique and highly-prized sweet and sour quality attributable to the natural environment of Pulau Ubin, and such oranges are known by the Chinese characters 乌敏橙 – in Chinese – oranges. Such oranges might be referred to in slightly different ways. So, let me give Members the different ways in which it could be referred to. For example, they may be referred or identified in Hanyu Pinyin as "Wu Min Cheng", which is a transliteration. Or they may also be known as "Ubin Orange", which is a translation of the words in Chinese. They could also be called "Pulau Ubin Orange", which is neither a translation nor a transliteration. All of these can be variants of a GI and they can be registered.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Geographical Indications (GIs) are terms which identify products as originating from a particular geographical location. They signal to consumers that a product has a special quality, reputation or other characteristics by virtue of its geographical location and origin. Many such products are food or drink. The Geographical Indications Act (GI Act) was enacted in 2014 and established the GI Registry, which had been agreed to under the European Union (EU)-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA). The GI Registry is run by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). It commenced operations on 1 April 2019, after the EU Parliament ratified the EUSFTA. As of 31 January 2020, 140 GIs have been registered. In this time, IPOS has become more familiar with the operations of a GI Registry. GI labels cannot be used on products which do not come from the place indicated by the GI evidently if this misleads the public as to the true geographical origin of those products. This is applicable for all GIs, whether they are registered or not. In addition, for wines and spirits, such GI labels cannot be used on products which do not come from the place indicated by the GI, even if consumers are not misled as to the true geographical origin of the goods in question. A registered GI enjoys enhanced protection. Registered GIs which are not for wines and spirits would enjoy the same level of protection for GIs which are for wines and spirits mentioned earlier.”
“But as I had mentioned, and I would like to go back to it, the 28 days is not written in stone. And if the party is able to justify a departure from it, the Court will consider that and not impose sanctions.”
“Mr Speaker, the 28 days in the Protocol are not immutable. There are a variety of factors which come into play when the Court assesses ultimately whether there should be cost sanctions against one or the other party should there be non-compliance with the Protocol. So, if the creditor forms the assessment that this debtor has been dragging his feet or is facing a series of claims which might cause the debtor to go into bankruptcy, thereby, triggering a series of other consequences, then, on those cases, the creditor may proceed, even without 28 days' notice. The only question is, at the time of reckoning, which I think Mr Lim Biow Chuan would be aware, is actually different from the position today. Even as we assess the conduct of parties, it is to assess whether or not the action has been reasonable or otherwise. And in doing so, the Court will consider a series of circumstances, including those that I have outlined. That is how the Courts will then strike a balance between ensuring that the creditor has sufficient time to make known the nature of the claim, make known the details to support the claim so that the debtor can decide if he wants to enter into Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), for instance, or maybe he decides to then seek upfront, the repayment plan from the creditor. In most cases, as Mr Lim Biow Chuan would be aware, 28 days would probably be far shorter than if the matter had to be engaged in Court altogether. And bearing in mind that 75% of the thousand cases end up in some form or another resolved without having gone to Court, the State Court's Protocol seeks to try to address the vast majority of these cases with upfront information, with details to facilitate as far as possible the parties' resolution by themselves.”
“The State Courts previously discussed the new Protocol with the Law Society’s Civil Practice Committee, whose members represent both creditors and debtors, the business-to-business aspect to which the Protocol applies. Since implementation, the State Courts further engaged the Law Society earlier this year on 14 January 2020 and solicited their written feedback on the Protocol as well. The Law Society provided its feedback in writing to the State Courts on 28 January 2020. The State Courts will be studying this feedback with a view to finetuning the Protocol, as may be appropriate.”
“The new Protocol was, therefore, introduced with the objectives of: (a) helping parties to identify the quantum of the claim, including interest, the relevant documents which may support the substantiation of the claim, and identifying the issues in dispute; (b) encouraging early communications between parties, active exploration of Alternative Dispute Resolution options, and the upfront exchange of documents and information; and (c) where legal proceedings cannot be avoided, the new Protocol will facilitate the drafting of proper pleadings and ensure that documentation is in order, as well as help to narrow the issues in dispute. This will focus the parties and also reduce the length of Court proceedings. Under the new Protocol, a Letter of Claim is sent prior to commencing legal proceedings. The Letter must contain details of the claim, such as the amount of debt and applicable interest, as well as the underlying agreement giving rise to the claim. The debtor is then required to send a Response to the Letter of Claim within 28 days, or such shorter timeframe as may be appropriate depending on the circumstances of each case. The Court has the discretion to impose cost sanctions on a party who does not comply with the new Protocol, whether the creditor or debtor, if the defaulting party is unable to show good reasons for the non-compliance. The new Protocol does not bar any creditor from bringing legal proceedings on an outstanding debt claim at any point in time. The State Courts hold regular engagements with the Law Society and the members of the Bar on a variety of civil matters, including proposed changes to civil procedure.”
“Speaker, the new Pre-Court Action Protocol for Business-to-Business Debt Claims is an initiative by the State Courts. It was implemented in August 2019 by an amendment to the State Courts Practice Directions. These Practice Directions (PDs) are issued by the Court to regulate its practice and procedure and are updated from time to time. The new Protocol applies to all business-to-business debt claims that are commenced in the State Courts from 1 October 2019 onwards. The new Protocol seeks to encourage businesses to resolve their debt claims early, before the commencement of proceedings. The State Courts see about 1,000 business-to-business debt claims each year. Approximately 75% of those claims, however, are eventually withdrawn, discontinued or have judgments entered in default. Based on the State Courts' experience, this is because such claims are frequently brought even though the debt is not disputed. Rather, the claims may be brought because there is poor documentation, wrong calculation of interest, or the debtor was simply seeking a breakdown of the debt or a repayment plan. As a result, costs incurred for the legal proceedings are very often disproportionate to the claimed sums and Court resources are also being utilised.”
“As I had mentioned earlier, the public hospitals which are capable of handling all forms of emergencies and life-threatening services to both adults and children are spread out geographically across the island. There will be sufficiently swift access to these services should the need arise. In addition, the number of specialists who are in the pipeline and whom we are training currently, will increase by about 43% over the next five years. These specialists will add to the availability of services and will also add to the pool of emergency specialists who will be able to deal with such situations.”
“Mr Speaker, all public hospital Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments are equipped and capable of providing resuscitation, stabilisation and initial treatment for all life-threatening emergencies, including trauma cases, for both adults and children. Public hospitals must also fulfill the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) standards of trauma care. Overall, the eight public hospital A&E departments, spread out across Singapore, provide adequate coverage to cater to emergency services in Singapore. MOH has had ongoing discussions with private hospitals about their capabilities in handling emergency care. Currently, private hospitals are not configured to provide the full range of emergency and trauma services required to manage all life-threatening emergencies or situations involving patients with multiple or serious injuries. Over the last four years, MOH has been collaborating with Raffles Hospital for the management of non-life threatening and urgent Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) ambulance cases. MOH carefully manages the training pipelines for emergency medicine and surgical specialists to ensure that there are sufficient capabilities to meet national needs. Currently, there are about 180 Emergency Medicine specialists and 240 general surgeons in Singapore.”
“Sir, with your leave, may I take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?”
“Mr Speaker, yes, Question Nos 1 to 6 will be answered in the Ministerial Statement.”
“At the same time, it will accommodate new healthcare services, new care models and also nurture innovation. This will ensure that healthcare services provided in Singapore will be able to address the existing and also the future needs of our population. Sir, I beg to move. 7.01 pm”
“It is necessary because of the measures that I have set out in the opening speech, that the new regulatory landscape is necessary to deal with evolving changes to the healthcare landscape. MOH would not, under this new regime, overall be collecting more licensing fees on an aggregate basis, compared to the position today. The general principle is that licence fees are pegged at a level commensurate with the cost of manpower and resources incurred from the expected inspections and the audits to be done. MOH has and will continue to streamline our licensing processes to keep our regulatory costs down, as well as reduce excessive regulatory burden on licensees. In fact, based on our preliminary assessment as we map the services across to the new HCS Bill requirements, based on our assessment, more than 95% of existing providers today will see either no change or a decrease in the amount of fees that they will have to pay. So, there is really no reason or basis for providers to pass on any of these costs to patients. The remaining providers who will see an increase are mainly providers who will be providing new licensable services regulated under this Bill. For existing providers facing higher fees, MOH will put in mitigation measures to support the transition and this would include implementing the increase gradually over three licensing renewal cycles. So, we will space out as far as possible the increase, spread it out over three renewal cycles. Sir, let me conclude. The Bill introduces a regulatory regime that is sufficiently nimble and flexible to protect patient safety and welfare, but at the same time, take on board the rapidly evolving changes to the healthcare landscape.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the point that Members raised about cost and that it be not transferred ultimately to patients is a point that we are indeed concerned about. To give one example, to reduce the administrative workload for all existing providers as we implement the Bill, MOH conducted extensive stakeholder engagements – part of what we did in that two years leading up to the preparation of this Bill – to understand and do a deep dive of their licensing needs and map these, as far as possible, to the new Bill licences and the requirements in this new regime. On Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Christopher de Souza’s query on how we will help providers, specifically the smaller ones, transition from the current PHMCA to the future HCS Bill, let me assure the House that MOH will support and guide all licensees to ensure a seamless transition to the new licensing regime. This will be done at each implementation phase, where PHMCA licences will be swapped out for equivalent licences under this Bill, without the need for existing licensees to file any applications or pay additional fees. MOH will continue to provide clear instructions and appropriate channels for stakeholders to ask questions, clarify their doubts or come and seek assistance from us on the transition to the new regime. Various Members – Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Irene Quay, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Melvin Yong and also Dr Lee Bee Wah – have asked how this Bill impacts operating costs and, in particular, whether licensees will pay more fees as a result of the new landscape. Again, let me assure the House, and I think one of the Members said, and I echo that, that this is not intended as a revenue-generating mechanism.”
“The Bill supports this by seeking to improve price transparency, such as requiring licensees to display common charges; by mandating financial counselling and itemisation of bills for certain settings, such as procedures conducted by hospitals or specialist clinics; and also establishing the Service Review Committee to monitor utilisation and clinical outcomes of certain high-cost and more complex services, such as proton beam therapy, for example, to ensure that not just is the care provided appropriate but it is also cost-effective, to take into account and to assuage Mr Leon Perera's concern that not all high cost procedures are necessarily good quality procedures and, perhaps, not all good quality procedures are also at the same cost-effective level. So, all these factors, they operate dynamically and they all have to be taken into account, depending on the nature of the service that has to be delivered and, of course, the patient's safety and the requirements of each individual patient as well.”