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 38 of 45.
“New Zealand has similar concerns. An opposition leader allegedly circumvented political donation laws by disguising a donation made by a businessman linked to a foreign government, so that it did not have to be declared. It has sparked debate within the country on the need to review policies against foreign interference. Indeed, today, information can easily be weaponised by foreign actors, at low cost, and with anonymity and impunity. No country is immune. This is asymmetric information warfare, fought in a theatre and era with no distinction between war and peace. In this battlefield, Singapore, an open, democratic, digitally-connected and diverse country, is especially vulnerable. We are a young country with sensitive fault lines that foreign actors can exploit to foment distrust and ill-will among our various communities. They can easily deploy the same tactics, both clandestine and overt, that we have seen elsewhere, to undermine our democratic processes and institutions, and subvert our politics. Many of the countries I had mentioned have learnt hard lessons and are taking action to expose and counter foreign interference. We are likewise developing a strategy on two fronts. First, we need to sensitise Singaporeans to the threat, and nurture a discerning public. We are our own first line of defence. We must learn to be sceptical of and be able to discern falsehoods or half-truths and detect foreign actors and their attempts to interfere in our politics. When they seek to create schisms in our society, we must stand together. Second, we must update and enhance our legal framework, which is outmoded against modern and technologically-sophisticated tactics, to counter hostile information campaigns.”
“At the hearings of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Ukrainian experts shared their country’s experience. Disinformation about the Ukrainian government was spread through foreign media channels and social networks. It created the impetus for armed conflict and weakened the resolve of Ukrainians to fight. It eroded trust among Ukrainians in their public institutions. The experts highlighted their country’s experience as a cautionary tale, a threat that countries ignore at their peril. Mr Ruslan Deynychenko, co-Founder of StopFake.org, an Ukranian organisation that counters disinformation, said, “You cannot ignore the existence of propaganda, because Ukraine did it for years, and it might happen with any country that one day you can wake up and look in the window and see people with machine guns who kill each other because somebody on TV persuaded them they should hate each other. Our experience, again, demonstrated that disinformation is a powerful weapon and it could be pointed to any country at any time very, very quickly.” He added, “Unfortunately, ignorance of this threat of foreign disinformation cost our country too much.” We are also seeing other insidious forms of interference, by foreign actors attempting to influence those involved in domestic political discourse through funding and donations. Miss Cheng raised the example of Australia. In one instance, a senator resigned after it was revealed that he had received donations from a foreign political donor and advocated that foreign state’s position on a sensitive issue, contradicting his own party’s official position. The Australian government has responded swiftly. Australia’s parliament passed a package of laws in June 2018, aimed at preventing foreign interference in their politics.”
“The campaign polarised and generated deep suspicion within American society and against its institutions. We saw a similar pattern of interference in the UK referendum on Brexit. Falsehoods on social media, bots and fake accounts were similarly key tools of foreign interference. Grievances over immigration and a growing sense of disenfranchisement were exploited to turn the British people against UK and European Union (EU) institutions and policies. A steady stream of anti-immigration falsehoods by foreign-linked social media accounts made people feel threatened and built a narrative of a British government that was failing to protect its citizens. There is also research suggesting that more than 150,000 foreign-linked accounts tweeted over 45,000 pro-Brexit messages in the last 48 hours of the campaign. The 2017 French Presidential Election was also the subject of foreign interference. Just two days before the second round of voting, nine gigabytes of data hacked from presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s campaign were leaked online. In just three and a half hours, the leak was tweeted 47,000 times, with some suspicious Twitter accounts, likely bots in action, posting more than 150 tweets per hour. In the Netherlands, a hostile information campaign sought to undermine support for an EU-Ukraine trade agreement in 2016. The same year in Germany, a hostile information campaign built upon a fabricated story about a German girl being raped by Arab migrants stirred up anti-immigrant sentiments, sparked demonstrations and eroded public confidence in the German government’s immigration and asylum policy. Perhaps the starkest lesson comes from Ukraine.”
“The foreign actor used bots and digital advertisements to amplify its reach and viewpoints rapidly to give the impression that they were popular. This built a false sense of reality: Americans felt that their views and concerns were echoed by others, without realising that much of the support was artificially generated by fake accounts. Researchers later found evidence that the foreign actor had targeted hotly contested states, such as Wisconsin, Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Facebook advertising campaigns on divisive issues. For example, voters in Wisconsin saw more paid ads on guns and race issues, because these issues held more sway with them. Those with household incomes of less than US$40,000 saw more paid ads on the issues of immigration and race. The campaigns riled up anger and fear, and deepened divisions in the society. The reach was huge. Over two years, about 126 million US Facebook users were exposed to content generated by this foreign operation. Americans were also deceived to believe that they were part of spontaneous local movements when they were, in fact, being manipulated by a foreign actor. In one instance, the foreign organisation cultivated two ideologically opposed fake Facebook accounts, the “United Muslims of America” and the “Heart of Texas”, and organised a protest and counter-protest at the same place and time to orchestrate discord on the streets. Real Americans in both camps turned up and demonstrated in opposition to each other. One man even brought a rifle. This hostile information campaign was not only to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential elections. Its longer-term objective was to undermine America’s institutions and democracy.”
“Mr Speaker, I am taking this Question on behalf of the Prime Minister. Members will agree that Singapore’s politics must be for Singaporeans alone to decide. Worryingly, however, the Internet and social media have created a new, vast and easy playing field for foreign interference. Among others, we have read about foreign interference in the politics of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Ukraine, Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Clandestine and sophisticated tactics were used to fracture social cohesion and influence election outcomes through the spread of disinformation and half-truths and exploitation of sensitive issues. In the US, indictments by Special Counsel Robert Mueller lay out how a foreign hostile information campaign systematically and surreptitiously sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Elections. More than two years before election day, a foreign organisation had started infiltrating American society. They used fake social media accounts pretending to be real Americans, and created social media groups on controversial issues likely to engage Americans. These accounts and groups gained influence over time, attracting thousands of real American followers. Social media posts by such fake foreign accounts even found their way into American mainstream media. The foreign actor was sophisticated in its approach. It had researched the fault lines in American society and politics, and drove wedges along these lines. Its social media accounts spread falsehoods and false narratives on divisive sociopolitical issues, such as race, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights, gun control and immigration.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission for Question Nos 1 to 10 to be dealt with when the Ministerial Statement is addressed?”
“(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)]”
“We will look at the names to ensure that they are not misleading, which is already the current requirement. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, tobacco use is still a significant public health problem in Singapore. Smoking rates in recent years have not shown a clear pattern of continuous decline, and more than 2,000 Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each year. I thank the Members who have spoken today in support of this Bill, and I also note the concerns that have been raised. The decision to introduce the SP Proposal, that is, to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products and to enlarge our existing GHW size, was not taken lightly. We have given very careful, due and deliberate consideration to the available primary evidence, consulted with experts in different fields and different types of experts and sought the public’s views multiple times. We acknowledge the impact that the introduction of the SP Proposal will have on tobacco and its related industries, potentially in terms of costs and other ways, as highlighted by various Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, and we have taken and will continue to take steps to mitigate this impact. Ultimately, the SP Proposal is expected to serve positive objectives and provide substantial public health benefits, including leading to reduced smoking prevalence in Singapore. These objectives and outcomes warrant its introduction in Singapore as an additional measure in our comprehensive, multi-pronged, multifaceted tobacco control strategy. I hope I have sufficiently addressed Members’ concerns and am grateful for the support that has been shown for the SP Proposal received from members of the public and also from this House. With that, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to.”
“We note that the US Food and Drug Administration is studying the possibility to lower the nicotine content of cigarettes to non-addictive levels. MOH will monitor these developments closely. There will be public health benefit if cigarettes can be made to be non-addictive but, of course, quitting smoking would be much easier. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if MOH would consider requiring broadcast media to carry reminders of the harmful effects of tobacco in all screenings of videos, movies or drama productions, where the scenes of smoking cannot be edited and cut. There are presently already content guidelines for media broadcasters to exercise due diligence in the depiction of smoking on television (TV), in movies and other media channels. But as Prof Lim Sun Sun did point out, today, the media is more than just traditional television, videos or movies. There is also social media on the Internet. With that in mind, we look at the different suite of measures and work out what is best to address and arrest these images. In broad terms, broadcasters must avoid conveying the impression in programmes that smoking is socially acceptable, glamourous or harmless. However, portrayal of smoking in films continues to be a problem worldwide and cannot at present be completely eradicated. However, we will study the suggestion to display anti-smoking messages or advertisements before any films containing tobacco imagery are shown. Mr Louis Ng also asked if we could consider restrictions on certain brand variant names. We will give it consideration but, as Mr Louis Ng knows, we prescribe the way in which the name of the brand as well as the variant are presented in terms of style, font and colour on the package.”
“The penalties are severe and they are designed to deter those who may be thinking of engaging in such activities. Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked two questions related to this. The first is, whether or not, once our standardised packaging measure is in place, one could still import non-compliant cigarette packs into Singapore simply by paying the duty. If Members look at the proposed amendments, no importation of any packs not in compliance with the standardised packaging regulations will be allowed. So, whether duty is paid or unpaid, the fact of the matter is that if the packaging for the purposes of importation into Singapore does not comply with the regulations, then that would not be allowed. The only exception to importation into Singapore for non-compliant packages will be for the purposes of re-exporting out of Singapore without coming into the Singapore market. Mr Dennis Tan also asked if we regulate the size of the cigarettes themselves, presumably because with the standardised packaging measures in place, one could foreseeably see tobacco companies distinguishing themselves by having different cigarette sizes or lengths. Mr Dennis Tan might wish to note that under the new section 17(3)(a) which is found in clause 3 of the proposed Bill, we already provide for the ability to regulate not just the packaging, but also the size of the actual tobacco product or cigarette itself. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has asked if MOH would consider restricting nicotine and other harmful substances in tobacco products. This is again not quite the emphasis of the Bill here. But I would like to inform the House that under the Act currently, there are already limits set for tar and nicotine in cigarettes.”
“This does not quite concern standardised packaging, but nonetheless, I understand that my colleagues at the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources are monitoring the effectiveness of the Orchard Road No-Smoking Zone before considering whether to replicate the concept elsewhere, perhaps in the estates that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned. We will ask them to consider Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's suggestion to study the effectiveness of the DSPs in other areas, and the feasibility of piloting a similar No-Smoking Zone concept in residential estates. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked what we are doing to tackle cigarette smuggling. Singapore Customs' enforcement teams already, as Members know, conduct operations to interdict supply and distribution of duty-unpaid cigarettes. Customs works closely with other law enforcement agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Singapore Police Force, to interdict cigarette smuggling into Singapore and also enforce against illegal street peddlers and end-consumers to suppress street-level duty-unpaid cigarette activities. Customs also organises targeted outreach programmes and community road shows. Of course, finally, members of the public can report illegal activities to the Singapore Customs through a 24-hour hotline, by email or on the mobile app Customs@SG. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also suggested that penalties for unlicensed import of tobacco products under the Tobacco Act can include a jail term under the Tobacco Act itself. Currently, selling or dealing in duty-unpaid tobacco are already serious offences under the Customs Act. Offenders face a fine of up to 40 times the amount of duty evaded, or up to six years' jail or both.”
“With the alignment of penalties, we make it clear that offences related to unlicensed dealing of tobacco products are considered as serious offences to the same degree as offences relating to prohibited tobacco products. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we have the profile of smokers in each age group. Based on our population health surveys, we do have information on the general demographic profile of smokers by age group and that is in part why we are concerned with the initiation of smokers, especially at a young age. HPB uses such information to customise and also target the education programmes and smoking cessation interventions for specific demographic groups in settings, such as schools, workplaces, healthcare and also in the community. For instance, HPB has developed the Ramadan I Quit smoking cessation programme to meet the specific needs of the community. Roadshows are held in various festive bazaars annually to provide cessation support to smokers. So, it is not just the campaign on the awareness but also providing these smokers who are keen to stop with our support for the cessation programme. In 2018, over 4,000 participants from all ethnic groups pledged to quit smoking. HPB has worked closely with the Ministry of Education as well as with Institutes of Higher Learning to increase education and awareness to prevent youths from taking up tobacco products or, for those who have started, to stop. HPB is further leveraging social media to better engage youths on the benefits of a smoke-free lifestyle, and to persuade the young to stay smoke-free. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has urged the Government again to consider DSPs in more places, especially in residential areas.”
“We prohibit it but, obviously, with so many different influencers and the examples that Prof Lim herself cited where one can artistically and somewhat perhaps very carefully design the way in which the images are portrayed, this makes detection and, therefore, enforcement a lot more difficult. Nonetheless, we will take on board the suggestion to work more closely with social media companies and the tech giants to ensure that this same message is passed through, which leads to my next point. HPB already runs a very extensive public education campaign. That is also done online and that is also done using social media. So, apart from enforcing it through the rules which we have in place, we also want to amplify our public education outreach on the same platforms with the same reach and, hopefully, to the same target audience as what these tobacco companies are trying to do. We will continue to do so and see how we can take on board Prof Lim Sun Sun's suggestions as to how we can work more closely with these companies, particularly on the point about algorithms, which is entirely valid. Mr Louis Ng has asked us to clarify the rationale behind the increase in maximum fines for offences under section 18 of the Bill. Section 18 is the provision that requires any person dealing with tobacco products – and that includes the importing, distributing, selling and offering for sale in Singapore – to hold a valid licence issued by HSA. As mentioned earlier, the aim is to align the maximum penalties in section 18 with the maximum fines for similarly serious comparable offences pertaining to the importation, distribution, retail and possession of prohibited tobacco products and imitation tobacco products under sections 15 and 16 of the Bill, respectively.”
“We will provide something similar for the SP Proposal. On enforcement, Mr Louis Ng asked about this question and suggested that MOH consider setting up a separate institutionalised body to enforce our standardised packaging measure, similar to Australia's Tobacco Plain Packaging Enforcement Committee. The enforcement of Singapore's tobacco control law already falls under a specialised regulatory agency, namely, HSA. The HSA enforces the labelling requirements for tobacco products, including the existing GHWs, the health information, as well as the sale restriction messages on tobacco packaging. This is usually done at the importer, manufacturer and also the distributor level. Thus far, we have found the existing regulatory regime to be adequate and sufficient, but we will no doubt keep in mind Mr Louis Ng's suggestion as we consider the details of implementation, if this Bill is passed. Prof Lim Sun Sun raised some very valid points on what happens with the proliferation of social media. These are all issues that we have to grapple with, not just in tobacco control, but, overall, in terms of the messaging and the type of information that one gleans and gathers on social media, which is very much and very quickly proliferating. We have two responses. The first is that under our current Tobacco Control of Advertisements and Sales Act, tobacco-related advertisements in all forms of media are already banned and that can include advertisements which emanate from foreign countries overseas but which are viewed or shown in Singapore. The law is clear on this.”
“We will, however, work with Customs and other relevant agencies to continue to monitor the situation regarding illicit trade and step up enforcement and educational efforts as necessary. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has asked whether MOH will be reaching out to retailers. I think her concern, quite rightly, was with the retailers who may have an existing stock of the older non-standardised packaging tobacco products and she asked if we could reach out to them, to help them understand the new standardised packaging requirements, hear their feedback, and also to understand any concerns they might have on the implementation deadlines and operationalising of the implementation. She also asked about the length of the transition period. These are all very pertinent issues to mitigate any harsh effects there might be against the retailers, particularly those who operate smaller setups. As mentioned earlier, should this Bill be passed, MOH will brief stakeholders within the industry on the proposed specifications for the standardised layouts for tobacco product packaging so the rules and requirements will be made clear. In addition, we will also discuss other operational implementation issues that they might have. Tobacco retailers will be invited to these briefings as well. As for the transition period that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised, other countries that have introduced standardised packaging typically give the industry three months to a year from the publication of the requirements for standardised packaging to the start of the sell-through period that I mentioned earlier. In Singapore, for past changes to tobacco packaging, for example, the GHW change, we have provided advance notice of somewhere between nine to 12 months' lead time.”
“Much of the evidence submitted was in relation to Australia's experience, largely because they have had several years since they introduced the measures, have gathered a large amount of data, and also looked at the experience, in some way, with the benefit of hindsight. The same evidence was submitted to the WTO Panel, which reviewed it in detail. The WTO Panel concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the introduction of standardised packaging in Australia had led to an increased trade or consumption of illicit tobacco so as to undermine standardised packaging's contribution to the overall objective of improving public health. The local context is also important. The prevailing form of illicit tobacco in Singapore is that of contraband, which is genuine but duty-unpaid cigarettes, as opposed to counterfeit cigarettes. Due to the relatively small Singapore market for cigarettes, counterfeit cigarette manufacturers are not incentivised to counterfeit cigarettes for sale in Singapore. In Singapore, illicit tobacco products are sold on the black market rather than at licensed tobacco retailers. The aim of counterfeiting is to "pass off" counterfeit products as the genuine article. There has been no evidence submitted in the consultations to MOH to show that buyers on the black market will choose counterfeit products in standardised packaging over contraband, genuine products, and that really is the assessment that one has to make. Overall, therefore, there is no compelling reason to believe that counterfeit products and illicit trade will increase with the introduction of standardised packaging.”
“This shift towards lower-priced tobacco products in the Australian market was observed even before the introduction of standardised packaging, and is also observed in all other high-income countries, not just in Australia, as smoking prevalence decreases. Much of this is attributable to pricing strategies of the tobacco industry itself, which has been known to increase the price differential between low and higher-priced brands when passing on tax increases to the customer. Our own assessment is that any acceleration in trends towards down-trading in Australia is likely to be largely attributable to the actions of the tobacco industry in differentially passing on the increases in taxes in the years following the implementation of standardised packaging. Correspondingly, the contribution of standardised packaging to down-trading is likely to only be a modest one, if at all. Any impact that down-trading may have on increasing overall demand may also be addressed by policy measures to increase the absolute price and, hence, reduce affordability of low-price brands, for example, by increasing tobacco taxes, if necessary. Regarding counterfeit tobacco products, our assessment is that the introduction of standardised packaging is unlikely to materially contribute towards an increase in illicit trade in tobacco products in Singapore. We arrived at this view after having carefully considered the arguments and evidence submitted by the tobacco industry players themselves on illicit trade to the public consultation, as well as, of course, the experience in Australia.”
“WHO recommends that countries should consider increasing the size of GHWs to cover more than 50% of tobacco packaging and replacing the images on such warnings every two to three years to increase their effectiveness. So, you rotate and change the images because, otherwise, one becomes desensitised and dulled to the images. This recommendation is also in part why we have proposed that the GHWs be increased to 75% of the cigarette packaging. I would add on this point, finally, that in the dispute on plain packaging against Australia at WTO that I mentioned earlier, the panel concluded, and I quote, that "there is some econometric evidence suggesting that standardised packaging, together with the enlarged GHWs implemented at the same time contributed to the reduction in overall smoking prevalence as well as in cigar smoking prevalence observed after their entry into force." So, it is a point that we have also leaned on and taken notice of in arriving at our measures. Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked whether the SP Proposal would lead to "down-trading" and an increase in counterfeit tobacco products. Down-trading describes a phenomenon in which there is a shift from more expensive tobacco products or brands to lower-priced alternatives in the market. The tobacco industry has contended that standardised packaging will result in this phenomenon, which will, in turn, lead to an increase in overall tobacco demand or consumption because consumers buy more products when prices are lower. We have looked at this with advice from our experts.”
“The aim of GHWs on tobacco products is precisely to communicate health risks and also to motivate tobacco users and, possibly, potential users, to either quit or reduce, or not even start consumption. This question has previously been addressed by MOH in this House. Members will know that there is a strong body of international evidence demonstrating the impact of GHWs on knowledge of health effects, thoughts about quitting, use of Quitlines, and ultimately on quitting attempts. Studies from Australia, Canada, the US and the UK have shown impact on behaviours, such as noticing cigarette warnings and forgoing cigarettes, predict subsequent quitting attempts among individual smokers. For example, a systematic review of 32 studies from 20 countries, including some high-income countries, with more than 800,000 participants found that GHWs are associated with increased Quitline calls, reduced smoking consumption, increased quit attempts, increased short-term smoking cessation and reduced smoking prevalence. Locally, in Singapore, a 2005 study by HPB evaluating the impact of the introduction of GHWs showed that 50% of participants were more concerned and worried about their health after seeing the GHWs. This also led to behaviour changes where one in four smokers were motivated to quit smoking and made efforts to abstain from smoking. Non-smokers were also affected and more than half spoke up to advise their friends and loved ones to quit smoking. This outcome and finding are also consistent with international evidence on the impact of GHWs. The evidence also suggests that the use of large and noticeable GHWs can reduce smoking initiation.”
“Analysis of this dataset indicates that over a period of 34 months, after accounting for other tobacco control measures, Australia's standardised packaging measure contributed to a 0.55 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence that was above and beyond existing trends. Although 0.55% may seem small, nonetheless it is still impactful. In Australia, it meant 108,000 fewer smokers. Together with our own experts, we reviewed this study in some detail. We have access to the dataset itself, so we did not just review their conclusions. We looked at their datasets in some detail, and we have found that its methodology and conclusions were thorough, reliable and credible. To put the results that they have achieved in context, if you were to apply that in Singapore, at the same rate that they have achieved in Australia, it would mean a reduction of 15,000 fewer smokers here. All of these are very useful indicators which tell us that the SP Proposal that we have put up is the correct measure to take. Overall, the evidence supports the conclusion that the SP Proposal is likely, alongside other tobacco-control measures, to promote public health through the reduction of the prevalence of smoking in Singapore. Whilst there can be no precise prediction on future behavioural trends, or how long the impact might take to be felt, or whether other measures might become necessary to achieve even better tobacco control, the current evidence points substantially in favour of there being significant public health benefit in Singapore with the introduction of the SP Proposal. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the effectiveness of health warnings.”
“WHO concluded in 2016 that, "there is a large body of empirical evidence… for introduction of standardised packaging", and that this evidence "suggests that standardised packaging makes health warnings, restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, as well as restrictions on misleading tobacco packaging more effective". In April 2015, after the introduction of the measures in Australia, the Australian government published its Post-Implementation Review data in a series of peer-reviewed journal papers. The studies concluded that the objectives of Australia's plain packaging measure had been met and again, I quote, "plain packaging is severely restricting the ability of the pack to communicate and create appeal with young people and adults", and "plain packaging [is] fulfilling its core aims of reducing appeal, particularly among young adults, and increasing warning salience." Indeed, studies in Australia after the introduction of plain packaging also found that there were behavioural outcomes associated with greater quit intention, and also negative feelings towards tobacco products. For instance, in one study, the number of quit attempts rose after implementation of the measure. The number of calls to Quitline also rose by 78%, peaking at four weeks post-implementation, and sustained right through 43 weeks post-implementation. There was also evidence that smokers avoided displaying the standardised packs and there was greater avoidance behaviour regarding GHWs. While it is, of course, very challenging to seek to isolate the impact of any one single tobacco control policy, it is noteworthy that in the Australian experience, they have had access to a large, granular dataset collected over an extended period of time.”
“In particular, he suggests that certain studies found that Australia’s standardised packaging measures did not adequately address the goal of reducing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead smokers on the harmful effects of smoking. I would like to address those points in some detail. There is a broad and extensive range of international and local research and evidence which shows that standardised packaging is likely to be effective in meeting public health objectives – the five points which I have outlined earlier. MOH has reviewed over 200 primary studies, reviews and materials relating to standardised packaging and enlarged GHWs originating from a wide range of sources and countries, and also across multiple disciplines, such as public health, marketing, psychology, economics and econometrics. MOH has also taken into consideration the feedback from our several public consultations in formulating our final assessment of the evidence pertaining to the SP Proposal. Studies internationally have found that through the elimination of logo and design elements, plain packs were perceived as less attractive, less attention-grabbing, and less likely to be purchased by youths, compared to branded and novel packs. Indeed, the US Surgeon-General’s Report in 2012 concluded that "there is strong, consistent evidence that advertising and promotion influence the factors that lead directly to tobacco use by adolescents, including the initiation of cigarette smoking as well as its continuation". Therefore, addressing the labelling and packaging of tobacco products is an important step towards reducing smoking uptake and prevalence. This is also aligned to what WHO itself recommends under the FCTC.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the various Members for speaking up in support of the Bill. I will now address the Members' queries on the Bill. At its heart, this Bill recognises that more needs to be done to achieve the sustained declines in smoking prevalence, and I reiterate the statistic that I mentioned at the start of this session, which is, that one in five men smoke daily, higher than in many developed countries. That is a statistic we do not want to see and want to arrest and reverse. Tobacco use, including smoking, remains, therefore, a significant public health problem in Singapore. Our long-standing public health objective is to promote and move towards a tobacco-free society, a point that several Members have reiterated earlier as well. This Bill is another in the suite of tools we have introduced, and which we will continue to introduce as necessary, to control tobacco consumption. Prof Fatimah Lateef has made the point that it would be short-sighted to view this Bill as a single entity. I agree entirely. The SP Proposal must, therefore, be seen in the context of Singapore’s various multi-pronged approaches to tobacco control. Our approach includes a comprehensive mix of strategies, and that includes public education, the provision of smoking cessation services, taxation and legislation, amongst other things, to control tobacco labelling, advertising and promotion, smoking in public places and sales of cigarettes to minors, all of which work in tandem to control tobacco consumption. Mr Louis Ng has asked for clarification on how standardised packaging can be expected to reduce the potential of tobacco packaging to mislead consumers on the harmful effects of smoking.”
“It will operate alongside other existing and possible future tobacco-control measures to contribute towards our Government's obligations under the FCTC and towards reducing the prevalence of smoking in Singapore. This would constitute a significant step towards Singapore's long-standing public health objective of promoting and moving towards a tobacco-free society. I seek Members' support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 18 of the Act, to increase the maximum fines for an offence under that section from $5,000 to $10,000 for a first offence; and from $10,000 to $20,000 for a person who has any previous qualifying conviction. This aligns the penalties under section 18 with the maximum fines for similarly serious offences pertaining to the importation, distribution, retail and possession of prohibited tobacco products and imitation tobacco products under sections 15 and 16 of the Act, respectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, smoking is a major cause of ill-health and premature death in Singapore. The Government is committed to reducing the serious harm that tobacco products cause to individual Singaporeans and to the nation's public health. Our long-standing public health objective is to promote and move towards a tobacco-free society and it is to this end that we have consistently adopted a multi-pronged approach to tobacco control. We further recognise that continuing efforts in tobacco control are necessary to sustain the declines in smoking rates and also bring the overall smoking rate to a level that is as low as possible. Based on our review of the evidence and the feedback, MOH is of the view that there are convincing grounds to believe that the SP Proposal is likely to achieve its public health objectives and, ultimately, is likely to operate alongside other existing and possible future tobacco control measures to contribute towards promoting public health through the reduction of the prevalence of smoking in Singapore and thereby constitute a significant step towards Singapore becoming a tobacco-free society. When introduced, the SP Proposal will form part of a comprehensive suite of tobacco-control measures in Singapore.”
“We recognise and acknowledge that the introduction of standardised packaging will have an impact on tobacco and other related industries. Nevertheless, the positive objectives as well as the public health outcomes that the SP Proposal is expected to achieve warrants its introduction. Should this Bill be passed, to facilitate smooth implementation of the new measures, we will be meeting with manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products retailed in Singapore to brief them on the proposed specifications for the standardised layouts for tobacco product packaging and other operational issues. Sufficient notice will also be given to the industry of the finalised specifications, and prior to the new requirements taking effect, manufacturers and retailers will be permitted to start producing and selling standardised packs alongside existing packs. This "sell through" period will allow retailers to clear their existing stocks of branded tobacco products and ease the implementation burden. Next, I will touch on several other amendments in the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 34 of the Act, to allow compoundable offences to be compounded for a sum not exceeding the lower of one half of the amount of the maximum fine prescribed for the offence or $5,000. The latter amount is increased from the current $2,000, which has been an amount which has not been raised since the Act was first enacted more than 25 years ago. This proposed increase aims to regain parity with similar provisions in other legislation and to ensure that the deterrent remains effective.”
“In this regard, it is also worth noting that a dispute settlement Panel of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has found that Australia's introduction of standardised packaging measures was not inconsistent with its international obligations under various WTO agreements, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement. The measures proposed in Australia were not dissimilar to what is being proposed in this Bill. Nonetheless, as a further assurance to rights-holders that the SP Proposal will not affect their ability to otherwise maintain and enforce their IP rights, clause 7 of the Bill introduces new provisions which will make it clear that the implementation of standardised packaging in Singapore will not affect the registrability and registration of tobacco-related trademarks and designs under the Trade Marks Act and the Registered Designs Act. Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new definition of "trademark" to clarify that the term has the same meaning as that in the Trade Marks Act. As mentioned, clause 6 confers on the Minister the power to make subsidiary legislation setting out the details of the packaging measures. The key specifications were set out in the public consultation paper on the SP Proposal, which was published in February last year. In particular, it was made clear that the proposed measures would include standardising both the internal and the external surfaces of all retail packages, standardising the shape and dimensions of the retail package, and standardising the branding and product information allowed on retail packaging, including location, typeface, colours and size.”
“All permitted information, such as brand names and product names, would be required to be displayed in a standard colour and a standard font style. The colour, size, shape, opening and finish of the retail packaging will also be standardised, as will aspects of the appearance of the tobacco product. Secondly, the minimum size of the mandatory GHWs will be increased from the existing 50% to 75% of all specified tobacco product packaging surfaces. Following the passage of this Bill – should this Bill be passed – subsidiary legislation will be made to implement the SP proposal, which will then replace the current Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Labelling) Regulations 2012. One of the key features of the SP Proposal is the prohibition on the use of any branding and that includes the logos, colours and other features associated with the tobacco brand, advertising and promotional elements, from being displayed on tobacco product packaging or the products themselves. This is the case except for brand names and product names that will be required to be displayed in a standard font and colour, as I mentioned. There have been concerns expressed that this prohibition would unduly impinge on the industry's intellectual property (IP) rights and would not be consistent with international IP law. Let me address this point. The Government maintains its strong commitment to the protection of IP rights. It is also our view that the SP Proposal is consistent with Singapore's international obligations in relation to IP rights. Tobacco companies' trademarks do not give them absolute rights to use their trademarks. Those rights are subject to legitimate Government regulation.”
“Under the new section 17, all tobacco products, and the packaging or labelling of tobacco products, must comply with every requirement prescribed in subsidiary legislation, including requirements as to size, appearance, design, health warnings and other information to be stated. Also, tobacco products and their packaging or labelling must not bear any trade mark, term, descriptor, figurative or other sign, feature, scent or sound that is prescribed as prohibited, or promotes the tobacco product by any means that is false, misleading, deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression about its characteristics, health effects, hazards or emissions. The latter is in line with the prohibition under the current section 17A of the Act. The import into Singapore, and the distribution, sale, offer for sale or possession for sale in Singapore, of such non-compliant tobacco products will be made an offence. In addition, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 37 to empower the Minister for Health to make Regulations with respect to the size, appearance and design of tobacco products and their packaging and labelling, the health warnings and also other information displayed on such products, including the trademarks, terms, descriptors, features, scents and sounds that I mentioned will be prohibited in relation to tobacco products and their packaging and labelling. As the papers published by my Ministry in support of and in response to the public consultations conducted in 2018 have stated, our proposal for Singapore's standardised packaging measures will comprise of two parts. The first will include the removal of all colours, logos, brand images and promotional information on the retail packaging of tobacco products.”
“Ultimately, Mr Speaker, our final assessment of the available international and local evidence is this – that the introduction of standardised packaging in Singapore, taken together with enlarged graphic health warnings, or the "SP Proposal", will be effective in achieving five public health objectives, namely: first, reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products; secondly eliminating the effects of tobacco packaging as a form of advertising and promotion; third, reducing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead about the harmful effects of smoking; fourth, increasing the noticeability and effectiveness of mandatory GHWs; and finally, better informing smokers and non-smokers of the risks associated with tobacco use. These public health objectives, in turn, both taken separately, individually and together, and in conjunction with other existing tobacco control measures, are expected to contribute to achieving Singapore's broader tobacco control aims, which include discouraging non-smokers from even picking up smoking, encouraging smokers to quit, and encouraging Singaporeans to adopt a tobacco-free lifestyle. Ultimately, the Government expects that these will lead to positive future public health outcomes, such as reduced smoking prevalence. It is in light of the foregoing that the Government considers the introduction of standardised packaging together with enlarged graphic health warnings to be justified from a public health perspective. Mr Speaker, allow me now to please highlight the key provisions that are being proposed. First, clause 3 of the Bill repeals the existing sections 17 and 17A of the Act and substitutes a new section 17, which enables the implementation of standardised packaging for tobacco products.”
“A local study carried out by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to assess Singaporeans' perceptions of current and plainer cigarette product packaging found that the current cigarette pack designs influence both smokers' and non-smokers' perceptions towards various attributes of the cigarette packs. Attractive pack designs were associated with high-quality cigarettes and increased likelihood of attracting youths to try such products. Amongst a significant minority of non-smokers, the perceived pack attractiveness was associated with the intention to try smoking. In contrast, plainer or standardised packs were generally seen as less attractive, compared to current cigarette packs. HPB's findings from other local studies also indicated that packs with darker colours and at least 75% graphic warnings were considered by Singaporeans to be least attractive and perceived to be more harmful to health. Health warnings on packs with at least 75% graphic warnings and darker colours were also more noticeable, compared to packs with just 50% graphic warnings. Between 2010 and 2018, the Ministry of Health (MOH) engaged in a continuous process of reviewing and evaluating a substantial body of international research related to tobacco product marketing and standardised packaging. The Ministry has also received a range of feedback, comments and concerns with respect to the possible introduction of standardised packaging over the years. All of these have been carefully considered and addressed in detail in two papers published by my Ministry in support of and in response to the public consultations carried out in 2018.”
“According to a study commissioned by the Australian Government, between December 2012 and September 2015, standardised packaging was responsible for reducing the country's smoking prevalence by 0.55 percentage points. This amounted to about 25% of the 2.2 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence during that period. In 2018, a study conducted by the French Department of Public Health found that one million daily smokers in the country quit the habit between 2016 and 2017. This decline, which was described by the French authorities as "historic", was attributed to a raft of tobacco control measures implemented in 2016, including standardised packaging. Other countries have also moved towards standardised packaging. The UK, Ireland, New Zealand and Norway have fully implemented standardised packaging measures. Thailand, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia and Uruguay are at varying stages of implementing standardised packaging, while Canada recently concluded a public consultation on the draft specifications on the proposed measure. Burkina Faso, Georgia and Romania have passed enabling legislation for standardised packaging but have yet to announce the date for full implementation. Other countries considering standardised packaging at the legislative or governmental level include Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Panama, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Mauritius. The role that branded packaging plays in encouraging children and young adults to experiment with tobacco and to establish and continue a habit of smoking is one that is of particular concern in Singapore, where more than 90% of smokers initiate smoking before the age of 21.”
“Key elements of tobacco packaging include brand imagery, logos, colours and, of course, the pack design. Cigarette packs serve as a "five-second commercial" whenever the pack is drawn from the shelf or one's pocket, held in the palm of a hand, or placed in full view on the table. Independent research and reviews of tobacco industry documents have found that packaging is an effective marketing medium that helps to build direct relationships between the tobacco company and the consumer through possession and use. Packaging innovation, design and value packaging are used not only to distinguish products from competitors but also to promote the product, communicate brand values and target specific consumer groups. Evidence suggests that the appeal of branded packaging also acts as one of the factors encouraging children and young adults to experiment with tobacco and to establish and thereafter continue the habit of smoking. Standardised packaging of tobacco products generally refers to: (a) the strict regulation of promotional aspects of tobacco packaging; and (b) standardisation of packaging elements. This includes removing all logos, colours, brand images and promotional information on packaging, other than brand names and product names, which include the variants, displayed in a standard colour and font style. It is often accompanied by a third element, namely, the incorporation of prominent mandatory health warnings. Singapore is not the first country to consider introducing standardised packaging of tobacco products. Australia introduced standardised packaging in December 2012.”
“More than one in five men smoke daily, and our male smoking rate is higher than that in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US. Clearly, we need to do more to stem tobacco use among Singaporeans, with a view to denormalising the use of tobacco products and bringing overall smoking rates to a level that is as low as possible. To this end, over the last few years, we have been studying best practices in other countries, as well as the recommendations adopted under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) with respect to the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which Singapore is a party to. We have consulted extensively on new tobacco control measures, which include banning displays of tobacco products at the retail point-of-sale, increasing the size of graphic health warnings, raising the minimum age for tobacco, and a prohibition on flavoured tobacco products. The ban on point-of-sale tobacco product displays took effect in August 2017, with the aim of reducing exposure of non-smokers, especially youths, to the advertising effect of such displays, and discouraging impulse purchases. Slightly over a year ago, this Parliament also passed legislative changes to increase the Minimum Legal Age for the purchase, use, possession, sale and supply of tobacco products. Excise duty on tobacco products was raised by 10% last year to further discourage Singaporeans' consumption of tobacco products. We are now continuing with our multi-pronged approach to tobacco control by introducing a measure that the FCTC Guidelines call on parties to consider adopting and, that is, the standardised packaging of tobacco products. The design of tobacco products and packaging is used to promote tobacco products among adults and the young alike.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, tobacco use, including smoking, is a significant public health problem in Singapore. Among risk factors, tobacco use is the second highest contributor to ill-health and premature death in Singapore. More than 2,000 Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each year. The social cost of smoking in Singapore has been conservatively estimated to be at least S$600 million a year in direct healthcare costs as well as lost productivity. Singapore's long-standing public health objective is to promote and move towards a tobacco-free society. To this end, over the years, Singapore has adopted a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to tobacco control with the aim of, among others: (a) preventing or reducing the opportunities for non-smokers, particularly youths, to pick up smoking; (b) encouraging existing smokers to quit; and (c) encouraging Singaporeans to adopt a tobacco-free lifestyle. Over the years, measures adopted as part of our multi-pronged approach have included banning smoking in certain public places, restricting tobacco advertising and promotion, introducing mandatory graphic health warnings (GHWs) on tobacco product packaging, banning the use of misleading descriptors, such as "mild" and "light", on tobacco products and also imposing taxes. As a result of these efforts, smoking rates in Singapore fell from 23% in 1977 to 19% in 1984, and further to 12.6% in 2004. However, in recent years, the decline in smoking rates has been harder to sustain. The smoking rates have been fluctuating between 12% and 14% in the last 10 years, with no clear pattern of continuous decline.”
“It will help to manage ML/TF risks within the sector, which, as Members have pointed out, is something that has been missing; this is one further piece amongst the various steps that we take. This would be crucial to combat crime and also improve security both domestically and globally. Finally, it will also reaffirm our commitment to be a responsible member of the international community. Sir, with the support of the House, 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)]”
“However, that said, regulated dealers are required to ensure that reasonable security arrangements are in place to protect personal data in their possession or under their control. That is really no different from the current regime, anyway. Other than complying with the requirements in the Bill, regulated dealers also have to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act and ensure that personal information obtained is not used or disclosed for other purposes, such as marketing, without the consent of the customer. Where appropriate, we will also be issuing guidance on how personal information should be obtained, handled and stored. Mr de Souza asked what will be done to raise awareness amongst the general public about the new requirements of the regime and the importance of such processes. Those are very good points, and we will work with the industry to inform the public of the importance and requirements of the regime, in particular, the need to obtain customer’s personal information as part of that due diligence exercise, so as to facilitate regulated dealers in their compliance with the regime. For example, we may also consider issuing posters and other guidance notes on the new requirements for regulated dealers to put up in their places of business. Mr Speaker, Sir, ML/TF are serious offences. They pose significant social, security and reputational concerns. To address these concerns, Singapore has implemented a strong AML/CTF framework for the financial and non-financial sectors. In line with the broader AML/CTF framework, this Bill will strengthen AML/CTF standards in the PSMD sector through supervision and regulation.”
“Moving forward, we will continue to work with these industry associations to engage regulated dealers to help them comply – first of all, understand, and thereafter also comply, with the requirements of the regime. And we intend to do it through regular AML/CTF seminars, outreach sessions and dialogues for the dealers, and the first session will likely be held when registration commences. Secondly, the production and circulation of AML/CTF guidance materials. These will include details on how to perform proper CDD, how to perform risk assessments and implement internal policies, procedures and controls. And based on feedback from associations, we will also, where appropriate, provide the materials in different languages and issue templates and checklists, so as to help the ground and the smaller players within this sector to better appreciate and also implement these measures. For instance, we will issue a brochure which will contain information on the registration process to regulated dealers before registration commences. We agree with Mr de Souza that the ML/TF risks faced by the sub-sectors within the industry may differ. There is not necessarily parity within the different sub-sectors and we will work with these sub-sectors and industry associations to support them and also develop guidelines which may be specific to their needs. Mr de Souza asked if regulated dealers will be given the power to ask for private information. In general, regulated dealers are not prohibited from collecting, using or disclosing personal data as long as it is strictly required for compliance with the requirements in this Bill.”
“We do intend to prescribe in the subsidiary legislation for dealers to keep records for a period of five years. This is similar to the record-keeping requirement imposed by all other sectors, including pawnbrokers, and is also aligned with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. Mr Murali Pillai asked for the rationale behind the power to prescribe different time periods for different classes of dealers or transactions. This is needed because the level of ML/TF risk posed by different classes of dealers or transactions may itself require different time periods for the records to be kept. At this point in time, we do not intend to prescribe different time periods but would like to have the power to do so and make the adjustments at a later stage if we assess that there is a need to impose more stringent record-keeping requirements on certain prescribed classes of dealers or transactions. I just want to touch on how we intend to support the industry, because that is obviously a very relevant question that both Members have raised. To start off, as I have mentioned earlier, we had engaged stakeholders early on, even before we formulated this Bill, to better understand the mechanics of the sector, how it works, what would be the issues that they face on the ground and what is needed to build the capacity to comply with the relevant requirements. These stakeholders, as I mentioned earlier, would include the Singapore Jewellers Association, and the Singapore Bullion Market Association and so on. During the public consultation, we also held briefings and dialogues for industry associations to explain and clarify the requirements of the regime.”
“On multiple transactions, Mr Murali Pillai asked how the Ministry would handle customers who spread the transactions over time, flying under the radar and keeping the transactions below the $20,000 threshold. As Mr Murali Pillai knows, under clause 15, the regulated dealers are required to perform CDD measures on a customer if there are two or more transactions in a single day which exceed the threshold of $20,000. This is an existing requirement under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. It is possible for customers to transact with multiple, not just one, but multiple different regulated dealers and go below the threshold each time, to avoid the CDD checks. However, the threshold itself is designed to make it difficult for criminals to misuse regulated dealers for illicit purposes, by introducing a degree of friction in the system in a way in which the transactions would be done. Should dealers come across any suspicious transactions, they also have to report it to the Suspicious Transactions Reporting Office (STRO) in accordance with already prevailing existing requirements. We will not expect regulated dealers to share their customers' information with their competitors, obviously. As the Member Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, that may not be practical. But he has raised an interesting suggestion about how some of the information could be pooled within or amongst the affiliated dealers or outlets of the same PSMD and that might be a better way to try to link the different transactions should such an occurrence of multiple transactions occur. On the record-keeping requirement, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the prescribed period. Mr Murali Pillai is right.”
“So, the touchstone is that, if the business is carried on in Singapore, it will apply to them. In the example that Mr de Souza cited, the manufacturers based overseas would not have to register with the Ministry or comply with the requirements of the regime when purchasing scrap metal from Singapore as long as he does not carry out any part of his business of regulated dealing in Singapore. Nevertheless, such dealers will be subject, of course, to the relevant AML/CTF verifications and processes in their home jurisdictions. Mr de Souza asked how the Ministry will determine if a product is a precious product. There is a lot of subjectivity to that. But as Mr de Souza also mentioned, there needs to be a degree of flexibility in the way we look at this. Obviously, if one is too prescriptive with the definition, then the effects of the Bill will lose its flexibility and that may then allow a loophole to be introduced. Having said that, we recognise that precious products may have different parameters to determine their value beyond just the value of the stones and metals, for example, in the branding or craftsmanship of such products. In cases where the classification of precious products is not immediately apparent, we will, of course, work with the industry to determine if they ought to be considered as precious products and then provide the necessary guidance to the rest of the industry. On that score, I recognise both Mr Murali Pillai and Mr de Souza raising the point that we need to have more communication between the regulator and the regulated and that, obviously, would be done as we embark on this journey after the Bill is passed.”
“So, from the individual's perspective, I have addressed Mr Christopher de Souza's point, but from the perspective of the regulated dealers, as well as those who purchase the second-hand items from these individuals, they would have to perform the AML/CTF measures where appropriate. On intermediaries, Mr Christopher de Souza asked what situations specific to limb B of the definition of regulated dealings involving intermediaries do we envisage we would cover. Intermediaries, as defined in clause 2 of the Bill, such as precious stones and metals exchange or auctioneer, would be covered under the Bill, and we need to cover the intermediaries because, otherwise, the intermediaries would immediately provide a way in which you would enable anonymity in the transactions, if one uses the intermediary to deal with the transactions in these precious stones or metals. Such intermediaries may import the items from overseas suppliers and perform the sale in Singapore on behalf of their overseas suppliers. Depending on the mode of transaction through the intermediary, it may not be possible for suppliers to perform the AML/CTF measures required, for example, to verify the identity of the customer. It is, therefore, necessary to also regulate intermediaries to ensure that the appropriate AML/CTF measures are performed where necessary. Mr Christopher de Souza asked if the Bill applies to persons or businesses based overseas but engaged in dealing with regulated dealers in Singapore. As stated in clause 14 of the Bill, the requirements of Part III, which deals with this aspect of Mr de Souza's concern, apply to all regulated dealers who carry on any part of their business of regulated dealing in Singapore.”
“I thank the two hon Members for their overall support for the Bill. I would like to just jump straight into addressing the queries which have been raised, all of which have been very valid questions. Mr Christopher de Souza asked what the definition of "business" is in the Bill. We would draw from the Business Names Registration Act (2014) and I would just like to define it as such: "'Business' would include every form of trade, commerce and profession and any other activity that is carried on for the purposes of gain but does not include any office, employment or occupation". So, it refers, for example, to companies, partnerships and sole proprietorships which sell precious metals, stones and products, such as jewellery. Mr Christopher de Souza also asked whether the definition of "regulated dealing" covers purchases of precious stones, metals and products for multiple purposes, including for the purpose of resale. It is not the intention of the regime to cover individuals who make one-off purchases and subsequently may decide then at some stage to sell their items to a second-hand goods dealer. Whilst such activities may be carried on for the purposes of gain, these are conceivably not matters that fall within the definition of "business". But, of course, if this happens once too often and there is a pattern of such activity, then all of that would be taken into account when looked at and considered in the context of the definition as to whether there is activity that generates gain under the definition.”
“In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Bill will allow us to establish an AML/CTF regime which will raise our AML/CTF standards in the PSMD sector and strengthen Singapore's AML/CTF framework. This will help us to better manage ML/TF risks, and combat crime and improve security both domestically and globally. It will also reaffirm our commitment to be a responsible member of the international community, upholding our status as a well-regarded and well-regulated financial centre. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The Bill provides the Registrar with powers of inspection and monitoring, investigation and seizure of property, to deal with possible contraventions of the Bill. Upon conviction, non-compliance with the Bill may lead to fines not exceeding $100,000 and imprisonment terms of up to three years, depending on the nature and severity of the particular contravention. This is also in line with penalties introduced in other Acts, such as the Pawnbrokers Act, as the culpability of persons who commit ML/TF offences would be similar. Clause 38 of the Bill provides for the Minister to exempt any person or class of persons, or any activity, from any provision of the Bill, subject to conditions or restrictions specified. This allows regulated dealers who are already covered under other AML/CTF regimes to be exempted. For example, it is intended for all Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)-regulated financial institutions to be exempted from registration and AML/CTF requirements under the Bill, where they are already subjected to MAS regulations. Classes of financial institutions that conduct regulated dealing, for example, banks, insurers, stored value facilities, will continue to be supervised by MAS. Finally, the Bill provides for a transition period of up to six months upon the commencement of the Bill to provide sufficient time for regulated dealers to register with the Registrar. The Registrar will also work with the industry, including conducting outreach to raise AML/CTF awareness as well as issuing guidance to regulated dealers, to ensure that they are well-placed to comply with the new requirements proposed in this Bill.”
“Clause 18 which requires regulated dealers to keep records of transactions where CDD measures are performed and information obtained through these CDD measures. Clause 21 which requires regulated dealers to submit a copy of the information of suspicious transactions to the Registrar, in addition to the existing requirement already under the CDSA to disclose suspicious transactions and also under the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act to report terrorism financing information. The Bill sets out entity-based requirements, and these are new and provided for under clause 19, which requires regulated dealers to implement adequate programmes and measures to prevent ML/TF, such as the introduction of internal policies, procedures and controls. In line with the risk-based approach to prevent ML/TF, businesses will only be required to develop procedures to address the risks identified in their risk assessment, in addition to the principal obligations prescribed. Taking in feedback from the public consultation, we have streamlined the principal obligations provided in the Bill. We will also provide guidance on the obligations and procedures to address the varying degrees and levels of risks, to help regulated dealers mitigate risks of ML/TF whilst, at the same time, also managing compliance costs. The Registrar may give written directions to regulated dealers under certain circumstances, such as to stop a particular employee who has been negligent in performing AML/CTF measures on multiple occasions from conducting any part of the regulated dealer’s business. This is necessary to enable the Registrar to immediately address any activity which contravenes requirements in the Bill or which may pose an ML/TF risk.”
“Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the Registrar may refuse to grant or refuse to renew registration, under certain circumstances, for example, if applicants were convicted of offences, such as those involving fraud, dishonesty or money laundering. This will help ensure that individuals who are not fit and proper do not operate as regulated dealers in Singapore. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the Registrar to impose conditions of registration on registered dealers. Conditions which may be imposed include the requirement to inform the Registrar of changes to registration details, to ensure that registered dealers remain fit and proper. The Registrar may cancel or suspend the registration of dealers under certain circumstances, for example, if the registered dealer fails to comply with any condition of registration, or if the registered dealer is no longer a fit and proper person. Part 3 of the Bill sets out the measures for prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorism which will apply to all regulated dealers who carry out any part of their business of regulated dealing or business as an intermediary for regulated dealing in Singapore. The requirements are broadly categorised as transaction-based or entity-based. Let me explain that. The transaction-based requirements are largely similar to existing requirements under the cash transaction reporting regime. These include clause 16 which requires regulated dealers to perform customer due diligence (CDD) measures under prescribed circumstances, in addition to the existing requirement to do so for cash transactions above $20,000. Clause 17 which requires regulated dealers to submit a copy of the cash transaction report to the Registrar, in addition to existing requirements to file cash transaction reports.”
“Thirdly, it provides for investigation and enforcement powers, as well as prescription of penalties for failure to abide by the requirements. The Bill provides for the regulation of any person who carries on a business of regulated dealing or a business as an intermediary for regulated dealing. This includes persons involved in the manufacturing, importing or possessing for sale, and selling or offering for sale any precious stone, precious metal or precious product. These persons are currently subject to the cash transaction reporting regime. The Bill will impose additional measures on these classes of dealers. The Bill goes further to include: (a) the sale or redemption of asset-backed tokens, which are instruments backed by precious stones, metals or products. Such tokens may be used for ML/TF as they are good stores of value; (b) the purchase of precious stones, precious metals or precious products from a customer for the purpose of resale, as these items may be proceeds from crime or used as means for ML/TF. Intermediaries, such as auction houses and providers of trading platforms services for PSMD, whether by electronic means or otherwise, are also covered under the regime, as they facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. Regulating these intermediaries will prevent such transactions from being used for ML/TF purposes. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the Minister to appoint a Registrar, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars, to supervise the PSMD sector. Regulated dealers, unless exempted, must register with the Registrar, in order to carry out the regulated dealing.”
“In 2015, more comprehensive AML/CTF measures were introduced for pawnbrokers, a subset of the sector. Given the inherent risks in the PSMD sector, however, there is a need to take additional and further steps. This would also bring our regime fully in line with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. The Bill will strengthen existing measures by establishing a comprehensive supervisory and regulatory regime that is risk-focused and which addresses the specific ML/TF risks in the PSMD sector. It will allow us to prevent dealing in precious stones and precious metals from being used to facilitate ML/TF by, firstly, regulating persons who carry on a business of regulated dealing or business as an intermediary for regulated dealing; and secondly, providing for additional measures beyond the current cash transaction reporting regime for the PSMD sector. We have developed the Bill in consultation with key stakeholders through, firstly, a survey of the industry; secondly, consultations with industry associations, such as the Singapore Jewellers Association, the Diamond Exchange of Singapore, as well as the Singapore Bullion Market Association; and finally, through a public consultation held between 13 September and 12 October 2018. In response to the feedback received, we have streamlined the requirements in the Bill to manage regulatory and compliance costs. We have also benchmarked the requirements against practices in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and also Belgium. Let me just run the key features of the Bill through this House. The Bill provides, firstly, for the appointment of a Registrar to supervise the PSMD sector. Secondly, it imposes comprehensive AML/CTF measures on regulated dealers.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Singapore takes a firm stance against money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF). In 1992, we joined the Financial Action Task Force, which is an inter-governmental body that sets international standards and promotes the effective implementation of measures, to combat ML/TF and the financing of proliferation activities relating to weapons of mass destruction. We have implemented a strong anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing (AML/CTF) framework, in line with the international standards set by the task force. This includes the prevention, supervision, enforcement, confiscation of proceeds of crime, and targeted financial sanctions against terrorism and proliferation financing. The financial sector and non-financial sectors, such as casinos and pawnbrokers, are subject to a comprehensive range of AML/CTF measures. The financial sector, in particular, has been subject to robust supervision for many years. ML/TF enables criminal activity to go undetected and poses serious national security concerns. It also damages our reputation as a trusted international financial and trading centre. A robust AML/CTF framework would, therefore, benefit Singapore and Singaporeans. In line with the broader AML/CTF framework, we have introduced various measures to mitigate ML/TF risks in the precious stones and precious metals dealers (PSMD) sector. In 2014, the cash transaction reporting regime under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act (CDSA) was introduced. This requires PSMD to perform customer due diligence, keep records and file cash transaction reports for cash transactions exceeding S$20,000.”