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 39 of 45.
“Each public healthcare institution also has governance in place to ensure appropriate drug utilisation. For example, Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committees evaluate drugs for inclusion in their hospital drug formulary and guide doctors on the drugs to use in the course of treating their patients. MOH shares the Member's concern that patients should be prescribed the drugs that are appropriate for them. MOH will continue to remind our healthcare institutions to do so and also strengthen our governance processes where necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, doctors in our public healthcare institutions typically prescribe patients with standard drugs. Doctors may sometimes prescribe non-standard drugs in specific instances, for example, if the patient does not respond to treatment with standard drugs or cannot tolerate the effects of standard drugs commonly used for his or her condition. We currently do not have ready data on the percentage of non-standard drugs prescribed for patients on MediFund assistance versus those who are not. Overall, however, 85% of drugs prescribed in public healthcare institutions are standard drugs. This has been consistent over the last five years. Available data from our public hospitals do not suggest that there is a systematic difference in the percentage of non-standard drugs prescribed amongst subsidised patients. To guide appropriate utilisation of drugs, the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) publishes guidelines on the appropriate use of selected standard drugs. To encourage the use of standard drugs, they are included on a Standard Drug List (SDL) as well as a Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) list where subsidies are provided and patients receiving the drug should meet predefined clinical criteria. Where clinically appropriate, drugs that are not on the lists may also be accorded financial assistance on a case-by-case basis. Internal hospital committees are charged to ensure that drugs funded under MAF follow the guidance. In addition, MediFund provides additional subsidies to those who are facing financial difficulties, including for non-standard drugs, to ensure that they are affordable. MOH tracks drug utilisation in Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs) to monitor compliance to ACE Guidelines.”
“The adequacy ratio is not necessarily compulsorily or in a fix fashion benchmarked against other jurisdictions. But nonetheless, there are comparables that are looked at in determining and also assessing what the adequate ratio would be. But ultimately, we have to look at it in the context of our own domestic situation, our own claims pattern, the kind of procedures that we expect to see and also the healthcare trends that we expect in Singapore itself. And the ratio has to be determined based on those factors. On the second question, the bills that fall outside the last 10%, as I explained in my speech earlier, they are largely made up of complex cases. I do not have the age breakdown for those cases. But, also, a sizeable component of those would be made up of patients who do not pass the means test for subsidies and that is why the amount outside of that would be larger. Finally, the question of MediFund, at various stages in different hospitals, there will be counsellors, medical social workers as well who will be able to advise on the particular patient's case and the accessibility to MediFund based on the individual situation of that patient.”
“There are several hundred thousand bills that are put out in our public healthcare institutions, so it is not possible to look at every bill that goes out and in discussion with the healthcare institution before that. There are basic guidelines and benchmarks, and that is something that we look at. It is, in fact, the subject of the review that we will do as well. And particularly in the context of this case, that is what SNEC has reviewed and will implement from 1 March. So, I assure the Member that we will constantly look at that and keep that within the range that fits in with the philosophy of MediShield Life. On the question of day surgery, to some extent, shortening procedure timings or use of technology might save time and possibly expenses and money. That would be another feature that would be looked at in the context of setting the claims limit. As the Member knows, there are tables of charges for different procedures and these are regularly reviewed with a very broad spectrum of expertise. Certainly, the issue as to whether or not cost savings might be gained from day surgeries or shorter surgeries or procedures which may be truncated because of technology, all these would be taken into account as we review the amount of claim limits that we have.”
“Well, there are two different questions at play here in Mr Pritam Singh's questions. The first obviously deals with the review of the claims limit, and that is a product of working out where the claims limit lie in the context of how many bills MediShield Life is designed to cover and looking at the healthcare cost in tandem with that and to achieve the ratio that one seeks to. That is the review of the claims limit that I spoke about earlier. What Mr Singh is separately asking about is the adequacy ratio. The adequacy ratio is something which is kept at a pace that ensures longer-term sustainability of the fund, longer-term ability to meet vicissitudes of life, and also to ensure that the MediShield Life scheme, on a longer-time basis, remains sustainable. That is something we constantly look at as well. But I want to emphasise that it is a separate issue from looking at the claims limit, which deals with the actual cost itself and how many bills are covered by MediShield Life.”
“Deductibles are necessary, because they are one component of ensuring that the premiums remain affordable. If there were no deductibles, or there are no other co-payment schemes, then one would imagine that the premiums would rise and we want to ensure that, for the broader base of Singaporeans, premiums remain at a scale which is affordable. So, deductibles are necessary for that reason. In terms of how the deductibles are looked at, one has to consider it in the context of the kinds of treatments, the claims assessment, the actuarial assessments as well, and then when you look at that in contrast with the premiums that we want to maintain, the levels at which we want to fix the premiums, that is how the deductibles are looked at and determined. In the context of assurance, as I have explained earlier, the healthcare financing framework is made up of not just MediShield Life. It is a combination of MediShield Life, together with MediSave and, if necessary, MediFund, along with the subsidies, all working in tandem and often overlapping with one another. Which is why, even in the context of Mr Seow's case, which Members have heard me explain, is not quite as common as one might imagine. Even in that situation, with the deductibles and with the co-payments after MediShield Life, the patient does not have to be out of pocket because of MediSave. So, one has to look at the entire framework working in tandem as being the framework that will sustain affordable healthcare in Singapore.”
“I thank the Member for the questions. Yes, we have to keep healthcare cost affordable. Members have heard me explain that that is our objective in designing the framework that we have. And in doing so, we try to strive to do that with two broad prongs. The first, obviously, is to look at the claims limit, which is the thrust of the Member's second question. And yes, we will review the claims limit and we will ensure that it is in tandem with the cost and ensure that the differential, as they move towards the inflationary cost for the healthcare sector, that it is kept in check and in tandem. Whether it is five years or three years, the objective is the same – to ensure that there is parity and that it rises in tandem, so we have decided to do it at three years. But, if necessary, we can always relook at the timescale as well. The second prong is to deal with the charges side, because one has to look at the claim limits as one sector. The other one is, of course, the amount of cost that is charged at the healthcare institution. That will also be looked at to ensure that there is parity. And that is one key aspect of trying to bring down and maintain healthcare cost to keep it affordable. So, both will be looked at at the same time. In terms of timing, three years is what we aim for, both the reviews that we are doing now. And thereafter, we will see if that is in tandem with the trends and patterns in the healthcare industry. We will adjust as necessary.”
“MediShield Life is one key component that provides Singaporeans lifelong protection against large hospital bills and selected costly outpatient treatments. Its features are aimed at ensuring adequate coverage while keeping premiums affordable. We will continue to review, refine and strengthen MediShield Life and other components of our public healthcare financing system, and, just as importantly, manage our healthcare costs to ensure that public healthcare remains affordable for all Singaporeans.”
“Moving forward, MOH intends to conduct these reviews of claim limits more regularly, around once every three years. Just as important as having a good healthcare financing framework is managing healthcare costs effectively, so that overall affordability can be maintained. We have to work hard on this and also explore various fronts on which this can be done. The need to monitor and manage costs and charges in public healthcare is particularly important. The majority of Singaporeans utilise subsidised healthcare in our public healthcare institutions. Some examples of our efforts to keep costs sustainable are the use of group procurement to get better prices, tapping on technology to improve productivity and applying healthcare technology assessments to guide the appropriate use of services, devices and drugs. We have also introduced programmes and services to help Singaporeans receive care earlier or at more appropriate settings. For example, under the hospital to home programme, patients receive visits at home for a few months after hospital discharge to ensure that they recuperate well and do not get re-admitted to the hospital. Together, these initiatives help Singaporeans manage costs and moderate increases in healthcare bills. We will keep a close watch on public healthcare costs and redouble our efforts to keep healthcare costs sustainable and affordable for Singaporeans. To sum up, we have a healthcare financing framework that has worked well in striving to keep healthcare affordable for Singaporeans. The healthcare financing framework is designed with several different but overlapping components to provide holistic support to meet Singaporeans' healthcare costs.”
“As an indication, this was only done for seven patients out of 42,000 procedures performed by SNEC that year. Mr Seow's bill was about $12,000 before subsidy. Of this amount, the Government subsidises approximately $7,500, leaving a balance of $4,500, or about $1,400 above the MediShield Life claim limit in this case. Because the SNEC bill was significantly higher than the claim limit, the payout was comparatively small, after the yearly deductible of $3,000. However, the balance of Mr Seow's bill was thereafter fully covered by MediSave, which meant that Mr Seow did not have to pay any cash out of pocket for the procedures which he underwent. Nonetheless, we had asked SNEC to review their charges. Following the review, SNEC has decided to scale down its fees for this procedure and a number of other complex procedures with higher fees, and will do so from 1 March 2019. MOH regularly reviews MediShield Life claim limits and benefits. For example, we recently extended coverage to Home Parenteral Nutrition and direct admissions from emergency departments of public hospitals to community hospitals. Last year, we also started a review of claim limits, with a view to making the appropriate adjustments as may be necessary. This ongoing review requires a careful assessment of the appropriate claim limits and also the consequential impact it may have on premiums, to ensure that the coverage of MediShield Life remains broad-based and also sustainable. This review is also being done in the context of the commitment to keep premiums constant for five years after the scheme was introduced in 2015. We expect the latest review to be completed by end 2020, but if the review is completed ahead of time, we will, of course, announce the revisions earlier.”
“For bills that exceed the claim limit, patient’s co-payment will include the remaining bill not covered by MediShield Life. These bills tend to be for more complex cases or where patients received lower means-tested subsidies because of their higher income. The latest available figures show that eight in 10 subsidised bills remain fully within the MediShield Life claim limits. This has come down from the limits set in 2015, caused in part by increased healthcare costs. We will review this and adjust the limits as necessary. However, even at present rates, in respect of the bills which fall outside the claim limits – in other words, outside of the eight out of 10 – about half exceed the claim limits by $230 or less. The claim limits are necessary as they serve to keep premiums affordable. If we are to remove the claim limits altogether, there will be significant premium increases for all Singaporeans across the board, to the order of about 30% or more. Therefore, rather than impose this on all Singaporeans across the board, those who prefer to have higher coverage and are willing to pay higher premiums can consider private Integrated Shield Plans which can include "As-Charged" features that cover 100% of the bill. Conversely, where patients cannot afford the cash outlay, they can tap onto MediFund as I explained earlier, or on other financial assistance schemes. In the recent case of Mr Seow Ban Yam, which Members raised, we understand that he had undergone a duct drainage procedure at the Singapore National Eye Centre (SNEC). The surgical procedure, which was performed by a senior consultant in an operation that took three hours, was complex, given his age. It is also not common for the procedure to be performed on both eyes at the same time.”
“The Government provides premium subsidies to the lower- to middle-income to keep premiums affordable, and additional support to those who need more help with their premiums. MediShield Life aims to strike a balance between keeping premiums affordable and ensuring adequate coverage of subsidised care. For this reason, MediShield Life has design features, such as claim limits, an annual deductible and co-insurance. Coverage of claims and amount of payouts have improved since the introduction of the enhanced scheme. To provide members with a sense of the comparison, in 2017, 555,000 MediShield Life claims were approved and $845 million was paid out. This is up from 344,000 claims and $448 million in 2015 under the old MediShield. The average payout per claim was $1,520 in 2017, compared to $1,300 in 2015. For larger bills, the payout was correspondingly higher. For the largest 10% of subsidised hospitalisation bills, which was above $4,000 in 2017, the average payout per claim was $5,800. In comparison, MediShield paid out $4,000 on average for the largest 10% of subsidised bills in 2015. As I had mentioned earlier, claim limits are one feature that helps MediShield Life strike a balance between keeping premiums affordable and also ensuring adequate coverage. MediShield Life claim limits and premiums were last revised in 2015 when the enhanced scheme was launched. At the time of launch, the claim limits were set to cover nine out of 10 subsidised bills. In addition, for larger bills within claim limits, the patient’s co-payment is reduced as the claimable amount goes up, dropping from 10% to 5%, and finally to 3%. So, for illustration, for claimable amounts above $10,000, the patient’s co-payment is 3%.”
“Mr Speaker, our public healthcare financing system comprises several components that work together to keep healthcare affordable for Singaporeans. First, patients in public healthcare institutions enjoy subsidies of up to 80% of their bills. Second, we have introduced MediShield Life, a universal healthcare insurance which provides all Singaporeans lifelong protection against large hospital bills and selected costly outpatient treatments, regardless of age or health condition. Third, MediSave can be used for the balance of the bill and helps Singaporeans lower their out-of-pocket cash payments. Finally, MediFund and various forms of financial assistance at our public institutions provide discretionary, targeted assistance for those who have financial difficulties. Last year, MediFund provided about $150 million in assistance to patients who require additional help with their bills. Taken together, this "S+3M" framework – the subsidy plus 3M – has worked well. It ensures that healthcare is affordable to Singaporeans, and no Singaporean is denied appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay. To underscore this point, in our public hospitals, seven in 10 subsidised bills are fully paid without any cash outlay by the patient. In other words, 70% of all subsidised bills do not require any out-of-pocket cash payment by the patient at all. Of the remaining 30% of bills, one-third require payment of $100 or less in cash, and another one-third of that 30% is paid for using a cash outlay of between $100 and $500. The enhanced MediShield Life was launched in 2015. This is a key component of our healthcare financing framework which provides universal and lifelong coverage, including for those with pre-existing illnesses.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?”
“I thank the Member for raising the point. Yes, certainly, it will be considered. And I will add that apart from what I mentioned, there are also other assistance schemes, such as the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly, which provides means-tested payouts of up to $200 per month for six years. There is also the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme, which provides support for severely disabled Pioneers through a cash payout of $100 per month for life. So, these and other schemes remain available and, certainly, on a case-by-case basis, where the most vulnerable class of persons who are severely disabled, needs assistance, the Ministry will look into those.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, today, Singaporeans with severe disabilities who require long-term care can be supported in several ways. These include insurance schemes, such as ElderShield, Government subsidies and assistance schemes, especially for those with less means, personal and family savings, for instance, and also Central Provident Fund retirement payouts. Singaporeans can tap on Government subsidies of up to 75% of nursing home costs. Singaporeans who require additional financial assistance for institutional care in nursing homes can tap on Government-funded safety nets, such as MediFund. Many nursing homes are also run by voluntary welfare organisations and may tap on charitable donations to provide further financial support to their residents. From 2020, Singaporeans can benefit from new initiatives to defray the cost of long-term care. These are (a) CareShield Life, a new long-term care insurance scheme which provides monthly cash benefits for the severely disabled. The scheme will cover all Singaporeans born in 1980 or later, regardless of whether they have pre-existing disabilities. Those born in 1979 or earlier and not severely disabled can join CareShield Life in 2021; (b) next, all severely disabled Singaporeans above the age of 30, including those who have finished their ElderShield payouts, will be able to withdraw up to $200 per month in cash from their or their spouse's MediSave; and finally, we will introduce ElderFund. This will be a new discretionary assistance scheme which provides up to $250 per month for low-income severely disabled citizens who are unable to join CareShield Life, have low MediSave balances and face financial difficulties in meeting their long-term care needs.”
“I reiterate that we have been disappointed with Facebook's failure to remove the clear falsehood. And let me just reiterate that STR had made the publication quoting directly from a report in the Sarawak Report, and quotes an interview granted by the editor of the Sarawak Report. The Sarawak Report itself, having seen the STR version of the article, published a very clear statement, not once but twice, calling out the STR report as being "false", "erroneous" and "misleading". Despite that, Facebook has not seen fit to remove its content or block the STR Facebook page. As we have seen, the spread is not just quick, it is wide. So, at this point in time, there are limited options to stem the spread and influence of such online falsehoods. It is difficult to curtail them. And so, to answer the Member's second question, yes, perhaps so, but there is probably a need for levers to be given so that these can be arrested, can be stopped. And we have seen the proliferation rate and speed and the reach. So, something has to be done and the Select Committee has made recommendations to consider precisely this, the appropriate measures to be taken so that these falsehoods and the proliferation of these falsehoods which, as Mr Murali Pillai said just now, travels faster, can be stemmed. On the Member's second point as to whether there has been a demotion or downranking of the article, it does not appear to us to have been so. But, as I said, our primary assessment is that rather than being demoted or downranked, it ought not even have been put up in the first place.”
“In conclusion, this incident demonstrates once again the insidious nature of deliberate online falsehoods. When STR failed the first time to gain traction, it simply repackaged the same falsehoods. That was then sought to give credibility by mainstream media.”
“Facebook’s reluctance to remove the post is surprising. In April 2017, it had said that it is "committed to doing everything [it] can to reduce the spread of false news to as close to zero as possible." In its written representation to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Facebook said that it "believe[d] that reducing the spread of misinformation and false news is a shared responsibility between public authorities, tech companies, newsrooms and classrooms." Facebook has also given assurances that it would work closely with the Singapore authorities to swiftly address online falsehoods. And yet, when there is an actual falsehood that attacks Singapore, Facebook refuses to remove the content. Facebook has said, in response to media queries on its decision, that it does not "have a policy that prohibits alleged falsehoods, apart from in situations where this content has the potential to contribute to imminent violence or physical harm." There are many situations where serious harm is caused even though there is no potential for "imminent violence or physical harm". And as Members will appreciate, the slow drip of poison, over a period of time, can one day result in and burst into violence. And Facebook will do nothing about it, despite the various statements made in Singapore and elsewhere. It will allow itself to be a platform for the spread of lies, falsity, to poison and divide societies through such lies, encourage xenophobia, and profit from that. This incident, therefore, demonstrates why we cannot rely on the goodwill of service provider platforms to protect Singapore from disinformation campaigns. It reinforces the Select Committee's recommendations that legislative powers are needed to protect us from deliberate online falsehoods.”
“Action will be taken against the wrongdoers, based on the outcome of Police investigations and on the advice of AGC. We also took active steps to debunk the falsehoods and stem their dissemination. The Singapore High Commission in Malaysia stated categorically that the article was “clearly libellous”. And this was carried in a number of mainstream media outlets in Malaysia. Notably, STR did not carry the clarification. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) issued a request to STR on 9 November to take down the article. STR declined to do so. IMDA proceeded to direct the Internet Service Providers to block the STR website, and they have since done so. IMDA also asked Facebook to deny access to the post on STR's Facebook page, on the basis that the post contains material that is contrary to the public interest, thereby constituting prohibited content under IMDA's Internet Code of Practice. Facebook declined to do so. This is surprising. First, the post is clearly false as I have explained above. The Sarawak Report on which the STR post was based and quoted, itself published a Facebook post calling the article on The Coverage, which had reproduced the STR article, "misleading" and "erroneous". It later published another post debunking the false claims. Many Malaysian publications, including the China Press, took down their articles after our High Commission in Malaysia issued the clarification. Second, as IMDA has made clear, the post contains material that violates Singapore law. Despite the clear falsehoods attacking Singapore, Facebook did not consider that there were sufficient grounds for it to remove the post. Because of this, Facebook's post with the false claims continues to be available on Facebook.”
“The first, highlighted by Mr Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, was a false claim about the vulnerability of the United States (US) Navy. The false claim was first posted on an obscure website, then republished by a foreign mainstream media outlet. It eventually began trending on social media and was then published by a significant number of prominent news outlets and tabloids in other countries. It took just seven days for the falsehood to go from an obscure website to international news. The second example, also cited to the Committee by Mr Nimmo, related to a disinformation campaign against Morgan Freeman, after he had said that a foreign country had attacked the US using online activity during the 2016 US Presidential Election. An obscure website run by trolls first initiated a hashtag #StopMorganLie, while publishing the claim that he was lying. This hashtag was then amplified on social media, including by a group claiming to be independent activists from the foreign country. It was finally picked up by the mainstream media of the foreign country, who claimed that the counter-movement against Morgan Freeman's assertion was a "big Twitter outcry", even though online traffic using the hashtag amounted to only about 1,000 posts. It was later discovered that the accounts of the so-called activists were actually controlled by a troll factory in the foreign country. What appeared to be an organic movement was really an orchestrated campaign. That is the evidence of Mr Ben Nimmo, when he came before the Select Committee. Now, turning to the Government's response, on the evening of 8 November, MAS lodged a Police report in relation to the STR article.”
“If I may refer Members to the first handout (Annex 1) which has the "ST Review" on the left-hand side, you will see that seven Facebook users shared the article collectively 45 times over three days to 39 unique Facebook groups. In this three-day period, about 800,000 potential viewers had been given access to this article. If Members go to the second page of that handout, to illustrate a different point, this post was shared to five different groups within a span of just one minute and you will see the timings on the left-hand side of the extract on the second page. On the third page of the same handout, to illustrate the spread of the article, the reach on Facebook, just to these four illustrative groups amounted to about 380,000. And you will see in the top left-hand box, the number of members in that group was close to 350,000. So, very quickly and very widely, this was spread. On 7 November, this repackaged article was reproduced on Malaysian website The Coverage. This report was then picked up by Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper China Press where it was viewed 45,000 times by 8 November, just one day later. Two YouTube videos were also put up, translating the allegations into Mandarin. It is interesting that, in this case, the spread of disinformation followed a pattern that has been established elsewhere. A falsehood first appears on an obscure site, and then gets picked up by mainstream media, which lends credence to the claims. I will cite two examples in the report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which demonstrate these tactics in action. And as I go through the next few paragraphs, Members can refer to the second handout (Annex 2) by way of illustration.”
“We are the first – and it seems, the only – country to date of at least 10 jurisdictions involved, that has secured convictions of individuals who facilitated the laundering. Five individuals have been charged and convicted for offences relating to the 1MDB scandal. Investigations are continuing into several other suspects in Singapore. On 8 June this year, officers from MAS, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and the Commercial Affairs Department met the Malaysian 1MDB Taskforce led by Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. Singapore has been providing Malaysia information on 1MDB-related fund flows since March 2015, and this has been acknowledged by Malaysia. The information I have referred to is all publicly available. And obviously there is no basis for the claims of corruption being made against our officials. I move on now to the curious circumstances in which the falsehoods were then further perpetuated. A few months ago, in May 2018, a similar article was published by STR. On 5 November 2018, the same article was repackaged. It used a quote from the Sarawak Report as a peg to reiterate the falsehoods first published in May. As at 8 November, this article had been shared around 1,600 times on Facebook. Some of these shares resulted from a concerted effort by a small group of users to spread the article across multiple Facebook groups, including groups that ostensibly cover unrelated subjects. The shares by this small group of just seven users accounted for the falsehood potentially seen by over 800,000 users who were members of these Facebook groups. Some of these facts and figures are set out in the handouts.”
“On 5 November 2018, an article was published on the website, the States Times Review (STR), stating that agreements with Malaysia on the supply of water and on the high-speed rail, favoured Singapore. These arguments have been raised by Malaysia previously and dealt with before in this House and elsewhere. This time, however, STR added a malicious twist. It took the old points on the agreements and concocted a conspiracy theory about how our Prime Minister and the Singapore Government corruptly allowed money laundering of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) funds in exchange for terms favouring Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, the suggestion that we were helping launder 1MDB monies, or were reluctant to investigate, is quite untrue. Singapore was the first jurisdiction to take strong action against the financial institutions and individuals involved in the 1MDB scandal. Investigations commenced in March 2015 and have since led to serious action taken against wrongdoers. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) undertook a two-year investigation of both foreign and local banks. This was the most extensive supervisory review it has ever taken. As a result of these investigations, it shut down two banks – BSI Bank Limited Singapore and Falcon Bank. BSI Bank was also hit with a financial penalty of S$13.3 million. MAS also imposed financial penalties totalling around S$29.1 million on eight other banks. MAS also worked to bring wrongdoers to justice. It seized assets amounting to S$240 million, of which S$120 million belonged to Jho Low and his immediate family. Arrest warrants for Jho Low and his proxy Tan Kim Loong were issued. Singapore also requested Interpol Red Notices to be put out for Low and Tan.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute two handouts which I will refer to in the course of addressing this question?”
“Finally, as I said at the outset, and I reiterate, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the various contributions from so many community partners and the legal fraternity, including the assigned lawyers and volunteer lawyers, all of whom have made LAB's work richer and more satisfying in the last 60 years. We thank them for their continued support, and we will continue to work closely with the legal fraternity to provide access to justice to persons with limited means through pro bono efforts or low bono efforts and assess how we may better recognise lawyers for these efforts, as Ms Rahayu Mahzam had suggested. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“As Members know, it is in its 60th year this year LAB's work is simplified by, first, simplifying the means criteria, which makes the process quicker, easier and also fairer; second, providing for more flexibility for aid to be given to those who might fail the means criteria, but nonetheless still cannot afford legal services for a number of reasons; and finally, improving the overall the administration of legal aid. This is part and parcel of MinLaw's efforts to ensure that legal representation remains accessible for the general public and, in particular, the most vulnerable of persons. Beyond legal aid, MinLaw is also committed to ensuring that the legal process is made simple and that access to justice in other forms will be enhanced. So, we enhance the family justice system, which centres on the welfare of the child and the family, through the Family Justice Review Committee established with MSF and the Courts. Second, we are also looking at substantive reforms in civil law to keep legal costs affordable, to reduce the complexity of civil proceedings and to strengthen the enforcement of civil judgments. Finally, we also enhanced frameworks that enable Singaporeans to resolve their disputes quickly and cost-effectively and, where possible, as amicably as they possibly can in the circumstances. So, we have built up the infrastructure for mediation to take place; community mediation has been happening for a while. And we have also raised the claims limit recently for the Small Claims Tribunal from $10,000 to $20,000, so as to allow more to benefit from this quick and relatively inexpensive forum.”
“In another case, an 80-year-old applicant had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and partial Domestic Exclusion Order against his adult son who was violent to him; and this allowed the son to occupy only one room of the flat. However, his son continued to use violence against him and, during one quarrel, his son pushed him on his chest, causing him to hit his back and fracture his rib. LAB was aware of this and immediately referred him to PAVE, a family violence specialist agency. PAVE worked with the Senior Activity Centre near the applicant's flat to set up a community watch for this individual. PAVE then subsequently also worked with LAB to support the applicant throughout the Court process. LAB eventually successfully obtained the full Domestic Exclusion Order for the applicant. Where relevant, LAB also proactively assists vulnerable victims and applicants to protect their legal rights. For example, if an applicant applies only for assistance in divorce proceedings, but when they come to LAB and LAB officers detect that there might also be family violence involved, then LAB will consider if it would be appropriate for him or her to also commence PPO proceedings or other such measures and assist with those applications. If the order involves the maintenance of wife and children, we will also inform the applicant how he or she can enforce the order if the other party does not comply with the order. Sir, I hope I have dealt with all the queries that have been raised. I would just like to make a few remarks in conclusion. First, to thank the Members' support for the Bill. The Bill will allow the LAB to continue its good work.”
“Members would know that the Ministry works with partners, such as the Law Society and the Community Justice Centre, to raise awareness of the law and avenues of legal help, for example, through pamphlets that are produced and also the annual Law Awareness Weeks. The Law Awareness Weeks, which just took place a few weeks ago, has expanded from one which lasts just one afternoon on one weekend, to one that lasts six weeks and is held at various locations across Singapore. This helps to bring awareness of the offerings that pro bono lawyers working with Law Society can offer to the community. Since 2016, LAB has also established referral protocols for family violence victims with the Centre for Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVE), and with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) for those with social service needs, such as housing problems, family dysfunction and also addiction issues. LAB is working with other agencies, such as Biglove and Hearts @ Feiyue, for applicants with child protection issues. The referral protocols allow LAB to refer applicants who require other social services to these agencies for help. Conversely, the agencies may refer applicants who require legal services to LAB for legal help as well. So, it works both ways. The referrals have helped a number of individuals and I would just like to highlight a few examples. For one such referral, the applicant had applied for aid for his divorce proceedings. His wife was verbally and physically abusive to the family on a daily basis, which had a negative impact on the children. LAB, when they came to know about this, referred the case to PAVE and worked with PAVE to make arrangements to assign a social worker to the applicant, and also to give counselling to him and his family.”
“Mr Murali Pillai asked if the Ministry has considered Mr Hri Kumar's suggestion back in 2013 for the Government to introduce a Public Defender scheme to help indigent citizens who face criminal proceedings. Since 2015, the Government has provided close to $6 million of funding support to the Law Society's Pro Bono Services Office which runs CLAS. CLAS, in turn, assigns lawyers to accused persons who have been charged with a crime and who cannot afford hiring a lawyer. So, in this way, this has resulted in expanded assistance to criminal defence cases, as CLAS has been able to assist almost four times as many applicants in 2017, compared to pre-2015 before the funding was made available. Mr Mohamed Irshad asked if we can equip micro enterprises with legal resources, such as business contract templates. This would, no doubt, simplify the process and the way in which legal services may be delivered on simple matters, but it is probably more appropriate for the Law Society to take this on and we will consult with the Law Society’s Pro Bono Service Office and other volunteer groups to consider if they can provide the micro enterprises with such assistance. I will end off by highlighting the holistic help which some Members have asked about it, in particular Mr Patrick Tay, that LAB and its partners have been giving to legal aid recipients who have more than just legal needs. This addresses Mr Patrick Tay's question about giving such help to families in need, and also Mr Mohamed Irshad's question on public education and what more can be done to bring awareness of these schemes to the public's attention.”
“And, as Mr Louis Ng also acknowledged, the merits may also have changed, given that the proceedings have taken place, evidence may have been led, and a judgment may have been issued on the case. So, a fresh merits test is also necessary to ensure that we continue to grant aid only to those most deserving and this includes those who are applying for or seeking a meritorious outcome, and this includes for an appeal. No doubt when a second merits test is involved, where one is making an assessment on the same matter after some time has elapsed, the time taken for that assessment will be quicker. Circumstances in such a case, however, which may affect the merits of bringing or resisting an appeal, or in enforcing a judgment, may have changed, and it would be useful to have regard to this in the fresh merits evaluation to ensure that the grant of aid still remains appropriate. I would also like to assure the Member that where an applicant requires aid as a matter of urgency, for example, when an appeal is due to be filed, the Director may issue a Grant of Aid on a provisional basis, if the Director is of the view that the applicant is likely to satisfy the means test and is likely to have a reasonable ground for appealing against the decision. This Grant is typically valid for a period of three months and can be further extended if necessary. Under the Provisional Grant of Aid, the Bureau may assist the aided person with the filing of the Notice of Appeal. In addition, the Director can also issue a notification under section 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act to stay the proceedings for a period of 14 days, whilst this is being done.”
“Allowing the Director in such cases to grant aid for straightforward matters will help, and not hinder, the applicant’s case by up to two weeks, as the Director can now immediately determine whether in that case aid should be granted or not, assuming the means criteria is satisfied, without waiting for the Board to convene. The discretion, however, will only be exercised in straightforward matters, such as uncontested matters relating to Probate, Letters of Administration and Guardianship matters where the defendants consent to the proceedings. Any application for which aid may be refused will still go through the Legal Aid Board. Let me just wrap up with a few of the other clarifications that Members have raised. Mr Henry Kwek asked whether PRs would be subject to a more stringent set of criteria in our assessment on whether they qualify for civil legal aid. The criteria will be the same, but PRs will generally be charged a higher contribution towards the costs incurred for their case, if they are granted legal aid. Mr Louis Ng asked why aided persons have to go through a fresh means test when appealing a decision for a case in which aid was previously granted and for a case where the aided person subsequently wishes to enforce the judgment. Mr Louis Ng also asked whether the Minister would consider an expedited process for assessing whether to extend aid to an aided person who wishes to file an appeal, given that strict timelines do apply in the context of when an appeal is brought. We require aided persons to go through a fresh means and merits test because considerable time may have elapsed between the time that the person first applied for legal aid and it was granted, and the completion of his initial matter. The means may have changed during this period of time.”
“They will be accompanied and receive inhouse supervision by experienced legal officers and have assessments made, before they are allowed to attend Court and represent clients. This training will ensure that the Specialist Legal Executives will be well-equipped to handle the expanded scope of work so that LAB’s clients’ interests will be effectively represented. Even then, for a start, we intend to limit the cases where such officers will take up to simpler uncontested divorce proceedings where the matrimonial assets are $1 million or less, as a starting point. If the matters that these officers are handling become subsequently contested or more challenging, they will be handed over to a lawyer, who will take over the matter. We will continually review the role of the Specialist Legal Executive to consider what more they can do. This will, no doubt, ease the burden and bring down costs overall as well as allow for cases to be managed more expeditiously, as I mentioned earlier. Mr Henry Kwek asked about the rationale for allowing the Director, instead of the Legal Aid Board, to grant aid for straightforward matters. Mr Kwek asked if we could avoid the Director being a "bottleneck". Currently, at this point in time, the merits of all applications are assessed by the Legal Aid Board which comprises the Director of Legal Aid and not fewer than two solicitors from a panel of solicitors maintained under the Act. The Board meets once fortnightly. This means that after LAB has prepared a legal opinion for an applicant, the applicant may have to wait for up to two weeks before aid is granted, deferred or refused.”
“Next, we will also be making various improvements to the administration of legal aid. Mr Christopher de Souza asked for an elaboration of the rigorous training that public officers who are not qualified persons under the Legal Profession Act will undergo in order to appear and plead in Court for an aided person. Mr Henry Kwek asked if MinLaw would decide what cases these public officers would take on and whether this would compromise the interest of aided persons. LAB will ensure the thorough and proper training of such persons and will ensure that no aided person’s interest will be compromised as a result of the use of such public officers. LAB's Legal Executives are well-trained and they complement the work of Legal Officers. Currently, Legal Executives already perform a significant amount of work at LAB and this includes the taking of instructions and preparing drafts of certain documents. We feel that many of them are capable of doing more and can be made to do more. So, we will allow our best Legal Executives to be appointed by the Director to provide legal advice and also represent applicants in Court proceedings and at mediation. All appointed Specialist Legal Executives will have to attend legal knowledge courses on relevant subject areas to the kind of work that they do. So, it would be in areas of divorce, mediation, the Singapore Legal System, professional skills and, of course, legal writing. These courses will be provided by both external providers, as well as through the inhouse legal expertise which already exists at LAB. They will have to go through a practical training programme, which will cover skills, such as drafting, client-management, client-facing work, Court etiquette and so on.”
“Children are one example; the other would be where the family members living in the same household may be estranged from one another. I just do not want to be taken in my answer to be limiting the circumstances which we consider. So, I do stress that it is on a case-by-case basis and looking at the particular facts of each case. Applicants who fail the means criteria will be informed of the reason. Applicants who may then have extenuating circumstances can bring this up to the Minister, under the procedure. It is not a statutory appeal. At this point in time, we are working out the operational details and also the procedural steps necessary for this to be highlighted, but it will not be treated as a statutory appeal. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the Ministry can consider alternative sources of assistance to applicants who do not qualify for legal aid, in other words, persons who fail the means test. And the example Mr Gan Thiam Poh gave was to ask solicitors to grant a deferred payment scheme for legal fees. Government assistance is generally given to those most vulnerable and those most in need of assistance. And that is what the current regime for means criteria seeks to achieve. If an applicant satisfies these criteria, plus the merits test, he will be given legal aid. But if the applicant does not satisfy the criteria, but goes on, nonetheless, to engage a lawyer, we will be unable to mandate that there be a deferred payment scheme for such services, which are really between the individual as the client, and his solicitor. But this, not being able to do it by legislation, does not stop a client from requesting his lawyers to consider either an instalment scheme or a deferred payment scheme as may be appropriate.”
“This brings me to the questions from Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Murali Pillai who asked how this flexibility could be exercised. Mr Murali asked, in particular, what are the circumstances where it would be "just and proper" to grant aid. I have given a sense of what that might be in my earlier paragraph. Ms Rahayu also asked if we can consider extenuating circumstances, for example, children or relatives staying in the same household but not contributing to the household income, or applicants who stay in private properties due to their circumstances, in our computation of PCHI or AV. The intention behind the amendments and the regime that has been set in place with the amendments in this Bill is, of course, to allow for a more flexible assessment to be made in order that aid can be granted if the Minister is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to do so, the key words being "just and proper". We want to retain that flexibility on a case-by-case basis, because each case will be different; the circumstances present for each applicant will be different and we want to have the flexibility to be able to assess these factors on a case-by-case basis. When such cases arise, the Minister may authorise any person, and that includes a panel of persons, suitably qualified, to make that assessment. In exercising the discretion, we may consider granting aid to an applicant who might otherwise fail the means criteria but still not be able to afford legal services due to extenuating circumstances, such as those that Members had mentioned. Mr Murali Pillai gave some examples and Ms Rahayu Mahzam as well. We will also consider if family members staying in the same household cannot contribute to the individual’s legal costs.”
“We do not generally exclude liabilities, such as debts, when we assess an applicant's means. I think what Mr Gan Thiam Poh has in mind is that if you are servicing or have taken out a loan which may be secured and where the security value may be below the value of the loan that has been taken, whether that can be taken into account. The reason we do not do that is because the applicant may have secured debt liabilities, for example, a mortgage or a car loan, which is quite common, but may still possess savings or income above the means limits. This may then allow him to afford legal fees. He would not be considered, in that situation, a person of limited means. However, if that person or the applicant has liquidated his savings and investments to pay off the debts and thereafter, remains in a financial situation as would allow him to come within the means criteria, then yes, that person will be considered for assistance. We will also consider an indebted individual with extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis, and may grant aid where it is just and proper to do so. For example, if the debt was incurred due to a significant expense as a result of an intervening event, as Mr Murali Pillai puts it, for example, a serious acute medical condition, then yes, those are circumstances that will be taken into account as well in the assessment. At the same time, whilst we are not expanding the coverage or considering the negative net worth and family members living in a different household when assessing means, the Bill, as I said earlier, does provide for greater flexibility and discretion for aid to be granted to deserving applicants. And this will allow us to provide aid in a more targeted manner, which would also achieve greater equity.”
“That is precisely the reason for the framework that we are building into the new amendments, where if it is just and proper, then the Minister may have the discretion to allow aid to be granted. To take the example a bit further, if the applicant is the sole source of support for that family member, and the family member is not a beneficiary of other Government schemes, those are factors that can be taken into account. Mr Louis Ng had asked whether the Ministry is tracking the legal costs and the proportion of households for whom legal representation remains accessible and whether we would consider increasing the coverage for civil legal aid. Ms Rahayu Mahzam also asked if there could be adjustments to the limits to allow for more to qualify for legal aid. I would assure Members that MinLaw regularly reviews the means test for civil legal aid, taking into account legal costs, the cost of living and other factors, to ensure that legal aid remains accessible to Singapore Citizens and also PRs of limited means who cannot afford their own lawyers. Legal aid is targeted and given only to those with limited means, as it has to be, because we have limited resources and we need to be prudent about how we allocate them. In the most recent review leading up to this Bill, we had taken into account these factors in deciding to retain the coverage at the present levels. And as I mentioned earlier, at this level, approximately 25% of households are covered. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we could consider negative net worth as part of the means assessment, if the applicant's debt liabilities exceed his assets. Mr Murali Pillai also asked, on a related note, if we would consider circumstances where families are put into significant expense as a result of intervening events.”
“But bear in mind also that the amendments do provide for Specialist Legal Executives to come on board to lend support to the giving of advice and also to appear in Court for some of these cases. So, that will also ease the load on LAB. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the use of household income would disadvantage applicants who need to support family members staying in a different household. In other words, what Mr Gan is saying is that if I look at only the household income of this individual, it may not give me a full picture because he may be supporting a family member residing in a different household. We do not consider family members living in a different household in calculating the PCHI because family relationships can be complex and diverse. The situation that Mr Gan Thiam Poh cited could well work the other way, where an applicant could be supported by a family member not living in the same household. In other words, he is coming to apply, and based on his PCHI, he would qualify, but yet, he is also being supported by a family member living outside of his household. The Government is not privy to the family dynamics in each situation and so, it is best at this stage to use the household income as the best proxy for family support. Furthermore, this will also be more convenient for applicants, as they will not have to provide information on family members who may not live with them, the extent of their support and the extent of their familial relationship, and why that may be. So, at present, we will keep to using the PCHI. Given these, we will adopt PCHI as I said, although I would stress that, in appropriate cases, we would also be able to consider the scenario that Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned, where it is just and proper to do so.”
“MinLaw will adopt the PCHI and AV of the applicant’s place of residence, savings and investments as the new criteria to replace the current disposable income and disposable capital criteria. The new criteria are simpler and much more aligned with what are commonly used in current social support schemes. The new means criteria consider the applicant's gross income and assets, instead of his disposable income and disposable capital. We will incorporate most of the permitted deductibles within the current means criteria, such as CPF contributions, when setting the new income limits in the new assessment criteria to minimise the risk that those applicants who were previously eligible would no longer be eligible when we move from disposable income to gross income. We will not include the applicant's CPF moneys in the computation of the applicant’s savings and investments. This is also consistent with our existing means test. The qualifying limit for the new means criteria will be set later in subsidiary legislation, as I said earlier, to take into account the 2018 income data. But it will be set at a level where there will be no material impact on the number of households which will remain eligible for legal aid, and it will be set at a level which would ensure that a similar level of households at present, which is approximately 25%, will be maintained. Next, we do not anticipate at this point in time a significant spike in the number of cases that come forward, and, hence, my point earlier about the allocation of Government resources. So, it will be managed. My Ministry will allocate the appropriate resources to deal with any increased caseload as they arise.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for contributing to this debate and also for sharing in our vision that access to justice must be a cornerstone of our legal system. I also thank the very many volunteer lawyers, pro bono lawyers like Mr Murali Pillai who is an Assigned Solicitor for LAB, because these people, apart from the rules and regulations that we make, these lawyers, with their pro bono work, contribute to the richness of making justice accessible to even the most disadvantaged in Singapore. There are several queries on the Bill and I would like to jump straight into addressing them. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the number of legal aid applications. In the past 10 years, LAB had received a total of 97,100 applications approximately. Of these, 88,800, or more than 90%, passed the preliminary means test. In general, applicants who were unsuccessful had failed the eligibility criteria because they exceeded the disposable income or capital assets limit. Around half of LAB’s cases concern matrimonial matters. Other common cases concern the enforcement of Court orders, monetary disputes and also probate. Let me next address the questions about the new means criteria and limits. Mr Henry Kwek asked about the assessment, while Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Murali Pillai asked about the qualifying limits and how they would be set. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether CPF moneys would be included in the assessment of the applicant’s savings and investments, and Mr Murali Pillai also asked whether CPF contributions would be included in the assessment of the applicant’s income. Finally, Mr Murali Pillai asked if there is a need for additional resources to be provided to MinLaw to administer the new means criteria.”
“It facilitates the simplification of the means criteria for applicants, provides more flexibility for legal aid to be granted where just and proper, and overall improves on the administration of legal aid. The Bill reaffirms the Government’s commitment to ensure access to justice for the most vulnerable, and I trust these changes will also enhance LAB’s ability to do its work in the many years to come. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“These "Specialist Legal Executives" will be authorised to provide legal advice to applicants and may also appear in Court for certain matters, such as uncontested divorces. They will first undergo rigorous and specialised training for this purpose. Clause 7(a) also empowers the Director to decide on the merits test in certain proceedings, instead of referring the matter to a board which comprises the Director and no fewer than two solicitors. This is to streamline the merits test process for what could be straightforward cases, such as uncontested divorce cases where the parties have agreed on all related or ancillary matters. Clause 10 amends the Act to allow aided persons to obtain additional Court documents free of charge. Currently, they may only obtain a copy of the judge's Notes of Evidence free of charge. The additional documents, such as Grounds of Decision or certified transcripts in relation to proceedings for which legal aid is granted, will be set out in the subsidiary legislation. Clause 17 re-enacts the existing section 9 as a new section 22A, to clarify that the Director has the power to require contributions for legal advice cases. At present, it is envisaged that contributions may have to be paid where legal advice and assistance in preparing certain legal documents is requested. We do not intend to charge a contribution for applicants who have received only oral legal advice, as is the current practice. Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Bill builds on the good work of LAB, supported by the legal fraternity and our key partner agencies, to continue enhancing access to justice.”
“In computing the applicant’s disposable income or disposable capital, the Director may: (a) grant such applicants additional deductibles; or (b) exclude the income of the applicant’s spouse. However, the Act restricts how much the Director can do in these situations. It also does not allow the means criteria to be adjusted for other applicants who might otherwise fail the means criteria but do not fall within any of those four categories. We understand that applicants may sometimes need more help. Applicants with other circumstances not currently prescribed in the Act may also face other strains on their financial resources and they may not be able to afford legal fees. For example, LAB currently is unable to help an applicant who fails the means criteria but cannot afford legal services because he has a sudden serious illness and has to pay for major medical procedures. The Bill will provide greater flexibility for LAB to assist these applicants. Clause 7(b) allows the Minister to direct the Director to issue a Grant of Aid to an applicant who does not satisfy the means criteria, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper that legal aid be granted to this applicant. The Minister may also authorise any person, including a panel of persons, to exercise this power. The remainder of the Bill makes general improvements to the administration of legal aid, and I will run through a few of the more significant provisions. Clause 3 empowers the Director to appoint public officers to assist the Director, the Deputy Director or the Assistant Director of Legal Aid. Some of the appointed public officers will be specially-trained Legal Executives.”
“Applicants will no longer need to provide various documentary proof of deductibles and, in setting the new PCHI limits, we intend to incorporate most of the permitted deductibles within the current means criteria to minimise the risk that applicants could be disadvantaged by the switch over from disposable income to gross income. We will set out the qualifying limits for the new means criteria in subsidiary legislation next year, to account for the 2018, or the latest, income data. The new means criteria will be set such that there will be no material impact on the number of households which will remain eligible for legal aid. We will continue to regularly monitor and review the new means criteria after implementation to ensure that legal aid remains available to persons of limited means. Other than simplifying the means criteria, the Bill also provides greater flexibility for legal aid to be given where it is just and proper to do so, for example, to those who may find themselves in extenuating circumstances. This can be found in clause 7(b) of the Bill. Currently, the Act only allows for a limited deviation from the means criteria. To illustrate, the Director of Legal Aid may disregard certain matters in determining the disposable income and disposable capital of an applicant in four specific circumstances defined in the Second Schedule. Those circumstances can be broadly summarised as follows: One, where the applicant lives apart from his or her spouse. Two, where the applicant has a sudden physical or mental disability. Three, where the applicant has a sudden loss of income. And four, where the applicant is involved in certain family proceedings involving children, or protection orders between spouses or ex-spouses.”
“A significant clause of the Bill is clause 7(a), which provides for means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation instead of the Act. This facilitates the modification and simplification of the means criteria. Currently, the means criteria involve an assessment of disposable income and disposable capital. Disposable income is calculated by taking the total income of the applicant and his or her spouse and deducting various permitted deductibles, such as living allowances and Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. Disposable capital is calculated by taking the value of the property which an applicant possesses or is entitled to and deducting various permitted deductibles, such as a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat owned and used by the applicant and his family as their home. These criteria have worked well to identify those who have a real need for legal aid. Nevertheless, some changes to the means criteria may better serve the most vulnerable in the future. The Bill will allow us to provide for means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation, and we intend to simplify the means criteria, without compromising on its effectiveness at identifying the truly needy. The revised means criteria will be aligned with those more commonly used by current social support schemes, and reference indicators, such as (a) the per capita household income (PCHI), and (b) the annual value (AV) of the applicant’s place of residence, and his savings and investments. The new means criteria will involve assessing the applicant's gross income and assets, instead of his disposable income and disposable capital. This also simplifies the application process for legal aid.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, access to justice is an important cornerstone of our society. The Government has strengthened our systems over the years to enhance access to justice for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs). This includes working with the Judiciary to enhance and improve Court processes to save time and costs and enhancing frameworks to enable Singaporeans to resolve their disputes quickly in a cost-effective manner, such as through the use of mediation. Even with various Government-driven initiatives to reduce the costs of dispute resolution, we recognise that some in our society may still be unable to afford their own lawyers for basic legal services. Providing access to justice to persons of limited means underpins the Legal Aid and Advice Act, and the establishment of the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB). To ensure that public funds are properly allocated to the most vulnerable persons who have reasonable grounds for legal proceedings they wish to pursue, the Act currently has a two-fold test for legal aid. First, applicants must satisfy the means criteria based on the applicants’ disposable income and disposable capital. Second, applicants must then pass a merits test. The Government regularly reviews the Act to ensure that the Act remains able to meet the objectives that I have just set out. This Bill arises from our latest review. The Bill does three things: first, it provides for the means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation; second, it provides for greater flexibility for aid to be given to those who might fail the means criteria; and third, it improves the administration of legal aid.”
“That is correct from a borrower's perspective. It is not legal for a moneylender to carry out a business without a licence.”
“In view of the recent increase in foreigners borrowing from moneylenders, on 4 October 2018, MinLaw announced two measures to strengthen protections for FDWs and other foreigners residing in Singapore from the effects of over-borrowing. First, the Ministry will impose aggregate loan caps to limit the total amount that any foreigner residing in Singapore can borrow from licensed moneylenders. The caps were first announced for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents under the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill in January this year, and the caps are: (a) individuals earning up to $20,000 a year may borrow up to $3,000; and (b) individuals earning $20,000 or more a year may borrow up to six times of their monthly income. Both caps will be extended to all foreigners residing in Singapore. In addition, there will also be a lower cap of $1,500 for all foreigners residing in Singapore who earn less than $10,000 annually. Second, the Ministry will also introduce a self-exclusion framework for all individuals who borrow from licensed moneylenders. Both Singapore residents and foreigners may apply for self-exclusion. Licensed moneylenders will be prohibited from lending to self-excluded individuals. This framework will help individuals to control their borrowing habits and to participate in debt assistance schemes administered by voluntary welfare organisations which typically also require self-exclusion. MinLaw, together with MOM and the Singapore Police Force, will continue to monitor the situation following the implementation of these measures and will assess if more stringent measures are necessary.”
“Mr Darryl David and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked for statistics on FDWs who have taken loans from licensed and unlicensed moneylenders. Mr David and Mr Sitoh also asked if the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) intends to place any restrictions on FDWs taking such loans. Let me deal with both questions together. The number of FDWs who took loans from licensed moneylenders was approximately 1,500 in 2016, 12,000 in 2017 and 28,000 in the first half of 2018. Moneylending regulations do not formally define a "loan default". However, estimates based on Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB) data from 2016 to the first half of 2018 show that the majority of FDWs have repaid their loans from licensed moneylenders. The Police have also observed more foreigners residing in Singapore, including FDWs, borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders. There are currently several measures to protect all individuals who borrow from licensed moneylenders. For example, the Moneylenders Rules permit a licensed moneylender to charge only the following for each loan: (a) an upfront administrative fee of up to 10%; (b) interest of up to 4% per month; (c) late interest of up to 4% per month; and (d) late fees of up to $60 per month. The Registrar of Moneylenders had issued Directions to regulate moneylenders' activities. In particular, moneylenders are prohibited from advertising their loans to members of the public via mobile text messages or emails. Moneylenders are also prohibited from conducting abusive practices, such as repeatedly "rolling over" existing loans to charge the administrative fee multiple times even though no new credit is issued; or offering split loans so that late fees can be charged multiple times, per loan, each month.”