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 41 of 45.
“While the caseload of the Tribunals is likely to increase after the expansion of jurisdiction, I wish to assure Members that the Tribunals are prepared to deal with the increased caseload, and they will also, on their own, regularly review their resources to ensure that the Tribunals remain an efficient and effective avenue for the resolution of small claims. Mr Dennis Tan also asked what is the anticipated growth in the number of cases. Just as a ballpark indicator, the number of cases filed in the State Courts where the claim was between $10,000, the current limit, and $30,000, the new limit, with consent, is about 9,000. So, there are about 9,000 cases which fall into that category. But bear in mind that this range includes claims from $20,000 to $30,000, cases which can only be brought to the Tribunals with consent. And there are also, on top of that, subject matter limitations, in terms of the kinds of cases that can be brought. So, we do not expect all of those 9,000 cases to surface in the Tribunals. There will be a portion of those. And certainly, that is the reason for these amendments – to drive more of the cases to the Tribunals as far as possible. In conclusion, I wish to thank all Members who have spoken and supported this Bill. Refining the Tribunals to improve their processes and enhance access to justice requires an ongoing, long-term effort. The many helpful suggestions and thoughtful comments by each of the Members who have spoken today contribute to this worthy endeavour. Mr Deputy Speaker, 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.”
“Second, while it is correct that Magistrates Courts do not currently have the power to hear claims which are exclusively non-monetary in nature, they do have the power to hear claims for unpaid rent and make orders of vacant possession. The amendments merely extend this same power to the Tribunals for claims of lower value. And I have noted Mr Murali Pillai’s point on mesne profits and double rent as well. And all of that is really subject to the overarching jurisdictional limit. So, no more than $20,000 for rent – mesne profits or double rent. Third, to ensure safeguards, the State Courts will also be instituting internal guidelines which will set out the factors for the Tribunals to consider before making an order for the delivery of vacant possession. That further enhances and strengthens and prevents any risk of such orders being made erroneously. Finally, I wish to touch on the workload of the Tribunals, a point that Mr Dennis Tan also raised. The various amendments and expansion of jurisdiction are likely to lead to an increase in workload. And that, ultimately, is the overall policy objective of these amendments. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the average number of cases handled by the Tribunals annually, and what the common types of cases were. From 2015 to 2017, the Tribunals handled an average of more than 10,000 claims annually. The common types of cases are disputes over contracts for sale of goods and provision of services, followed by claims arising from damage to property, and leases of residential premises.”
“I would add also, in relation to the proceedings, a suggestion brought up by Mr Dennis Tan that today, any individual, whether a party or a non-party to the Tribunal proceedings, can ask for and obtain a copy of the judgment, to find out what has happened and what was ruled and how it was ruled in each particular case. On vacant possession, Mr Murali Pillai raised some concerns about the enforcement of a specific type of order which the Tribunals can make, namely, the power to order delivery of vacant possession in claims for unpaid rent. This was on the basis that not even the Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hear and try such action where there is no claim for a sum of money. And I think he is referring to section 52(1A) of the State Courts Act. Mr Murali Pillai asked if there will be safeguards when the Tribunals make this order. Insofar as Mr Murali Pillai is concerned that the Tribunals are being given the power to make an unduly onerous remedy, I would like to set out the following points in response. First, the Tribunals have been hearing tenancy claims involving unpaid rent for some time now since 2005, and they have developed the relevant expertise to deal with this type of claims. Vacant possession is a usual remedy for unpaid rent. It is one of those follow-on consequences. If rent is not paid, particularly when it is not paid persistently, then it is only right that the landlord has an option for getting vacant possession back from the tenant. So, it is related to unpaid rent. And empowering the Tribunals to order the delivery of vacant possession where necessary broadens, in my view, fairly, the suite of orders available to ensure that justice is done.”
“When an order is made, the Tribunal Magistrates will brief the claimant and respondent on (a) the consequences of non-compliance; with the hope that in doing so, the respondent will be more aware of the consequences of not obeying the order in favour of the claimant; (b) the options which a claimant has to enforce his order; so right at the outset, the claimant is aware of the suite of options that he has available; (c) provide information which the claimant may consider, in deciding whether it is worthwhile to commence enforcement proceedings or not; and (d) the typical enforcement fees that he might incur. So, all these are given upfront and told to the parties at the stage where the order is made. The Tribunal Magistrates will also give parties a brochure at the end of the hearing and address any questions that parties may have about the judgment. Members of the public may also approach the Tribunals' staff in person or through the Tribunals' hotline if they have any queries on the enforcement process. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo asked if there are plans to relook the costs involved in enforcing a money order issued by the Tribunals, to make it more cost-efficient for the average claimant to enforce his order. I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo for their suggestions. Indeed, MinLaw is currently reviewing the process of enforcing civil judgments and orders and this includes orders by the Tribunals as well, with the aim of making the enforcement process more affordable and, as far as possible, more effective. We will also study Mr Louis Ng’s suggestion to carve out separate enforcement processes for low-value claims.”
“In such cases, even though leave to appeal to the High Court has not been granted as it does not concern an issue of law or jurisdiction, it is nonetheless important that parties are provided with an appropriate and right of recourse through the reconsideration and rehearing by Tribunals. This, I will add, is also consistent with the practice in tribunals in other jurisdictions, such as those in Hong Kong and New Zealand. On a related note, Mr Murali Pillai asked if empowering the District Court in this manner effectively gives the District Court supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals. That is not the intention nor the desired effect of this clause. The District Court's power to remit cases for reconsideration, or order a rehearing, does not fall within the definition of "supervisory jurisdiction", and this is explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of Citiwall Safety Glass vs Mansource Interior. If Mr Murali Pillai wants the citation, it is [2015] 1 SLR 797. In particular, the District Court which remits a case or orders a rehearing is not reviewing the proceedings and decisions of the Tribunals below. It is merely directing that new evidence which was not previously considered, be considered by the Tribunals. I now turn to the enforcement of Tribunals' decisions, on which a few Members spoke about. While the State Courts do not currently track statistics on the success rates of enforcing Tribunals' decisions, I fully agree with Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Desmond Choo that the enforcement process must be simplified and accessible to Court users. The Tribunals have made steps in this direction.”
“Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked if it would be useful to give litigants-in-person more time beyond 14 days to seek legal advice to prepare the notice of appeal. It is important to remember that the 14-day deadline is only for parties to file the Notice for Leave to Appeal. At this stage, the appellant need only set out the points of appeal briefly. If the District Court gives leave to appeal, the appellant then has one month from that date to file his Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal is in a prescribed form which is contained in the Tribunal Rules, which only requires the appellant to state the grounds of his appeal in brief. It is only when the appellant files his Petition of Appeal, 21 days after serving the Notice of Appeal, that he is then required to set out in greater detail the particulars of the matters in regard to which the Tribunals are alleged to have erred. The appellant only has to make fuller submissions on his appeal on the day of the hearing before the District Court. I hope that this reassures Ms Rahayu Mahzam that an appellant will have ample time to seek legal advice on the appeal, if necessary. On clause 16, Mr Murali Pillai asked whether allowing a case to be reheard on a ground involving issues of fact is, in fact, consistent with the previous approach of narrowing the scope of an appeal from the Tribunals to the High Court. Clause 16 empowers the District Court to direct cases be remitted back to the Tribunals for reconsideration or rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal only in limited cases, such as where new facts become available and it is manifestly unjust to allow the original decision to stand.”
“Again, this is one of those occasions where we need to strike a balance and also, bear in mind that there is a need to, whilst allowing a claimant to bring his case, also ensure that fairness and justice are being done to the respondent who has to face this claim. Generally, documentary evidence would usually be the best and most probative type of evidence. However, it is not the only evidence which a Tribunal, including the Tribunals, can consider. The Tribunals would also look at, for instance, evidence as to whether the seller, for example, had made an oral representation, and what those terms of the oral representation might be, whether or not the goods that were sold were objectively of a satisfactory and acceptable state or otherwise. So, there will be other non-documentary and non-written type of evidence available. Relatedly, Ms Joan Pereira asked whether, where the tenant breaches the tenancy contract, the landlord may recover the stamp duty paid as damages. That also depends on the facts of the case, for example, the nature of the contract and the provisions that are in the contract itself, but I would not, by simply looking at the face of the Tribunal rules, rule it out on that score alone. Next, I would like to touch on some points on appeals which various Members have spoken about.”
“On the other hand, allowing too many of such claims with high aggregate values to be heard in the Tribunals may well be unfair to the respondent, may well become a very high stakes issue for the respondent, and significantly increase his potential liability, without at the same time affording him the corresponding benefit of the stricter procedural and evidentiary rules and also of the prospect of being represented by a legal counsel. This question was also looked at by the High Court in Freely Pte Ltd vs Ong Kaili, a 2010 decision, where the Court commented that the Tribunals are not the most appropriate forum for dealing with a large number of consolidated claims involving multiple parties. The simple processes of the Tribunals were really designed for a single complainant to bring a small claim, which is relatively straightforward and not legally complicated, for it to be resolved inexpensively and expeditiously. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the need or demand for such actions, and also consider Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion of an "intermediate solution" of stipulating a higher monetary limit for the aggregate value of consolidated or representative claims in our next review. Ms K Thanaletchimi and Mr Desmond Choo also queried whether class-action suits in relation to bicycle-sharing arrangements and micro transactions can be heard in the Tribunals. This will, of course, depend on the ceiling limit – the aggregate value ceiling limit of the claims in the actions. The Tribunals can hear such claims so long as the aggregate value of the claims does not exceed the Tribunals' claim limit. Ms Joan Pereira asked how claimants can establish their claims in the Tribunals where documentary evidence is not available.”
“It has got to respond to the parties' needs, it has got to respond to how the parties each see their position and see their case. So, I do not think it can be legislated upfront as to what should happen, But rest assured that the conduct of the parties and the way which it is going will be taken into account by these facilitators, the mediators and, ultimately, the Tribunal Magistrates. Mr Louis Ng queried if parties will be provided with information on ADR processes to guide them on whether to go for ADR. Such information is currently already available through pamphlets and guides at the State Courts, and it is certainly a big part of the suite of services offered at the State Courts. So, State Courts are not just about the litigation of dispute resolution process by going to Court. ADR is very much a part of it. In addition, parties can also approach the State Courts staff or the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts if they have any further queries or require any guidance on ADR. On the case management powers, several Members have spoken about such powers of the Tribunals, in particular, the powers to consolidate claims, order costs on parties and so on. I will address them as follows. On the question of consolidation, Mr Murali Pillai raised the question whether the higher limit for the aggregate value of consolidated claims can be brought in the Tribunals. I can see where Mr Murali Pillai is coming from. But this, again, is really a question of striking the right balance. Allowing claims involving a common question of fact or law to be jointly heard and decided in the Tribunals can reap the rewards of efficiency and also consistency, as Mr Murali Pillai pointed out.”
“Even if there is a dispute, one should not rule out an amicable settlement even at a late stage. I mentioned earlier that the proposed amendments to empower the Registrar or the Tribunals to order parties to attend mediation at the CMC or before any other person. Mediation facilitates the just, expeditious and economical resolution of cases. Therefore, Tribunals will, where possible, encourage parties to strongly consider mediation. Some Members have raised a concern about uncooperative parties using mediation as a tool, or an excuse, to drag out the case, and asked whether penalties will be imposed on deliberately uncooperative parties. Er Dr Lee raised that point. The majority of parties, generally, approaching mediation, has done so in good faith, and they do so hoping to resolve their differences amicably. Some do it because they wish to see an end to the dispute, others do it because there is a continuing relationship with the party against whom a claim is being made and they wish to preserve that relationship. So, for a variety of reasons, we have seen the parties come forward, still in good faith, to undertake mediation. Mediators are also trained to help facilitate constructive discussions between parties, while Court counsellors also provide counselling services to users at the same time. If, however, a party is wholly unreasonable in refusing to mediate, is unusually disruptive or is very uncooperative or takes a very unreasonably disruptive stance during mediation, then the Tribunals can and should take this into account when deciding on costs at the end of the day. It is difficult to legislate upfront what can or cannot be done in the mediation because mediation, by its own definition, has really got to be dynamic.”
“To achieve this, the State Courts ensure that all the Tribunal Magistrates are not only legally qualified but also experienced in hearing cases involving members of the public. Tribunal Magistrates, referred to as referees today, also typically render brief oral grounds after each case, setting out the reasons for their decisions clearly. They also address queries and clarifications which parties may have at that juncture. This is to ensure that all parties, as far as possible, are aware of and can understand the reasons for the decision. Mr Dennis Tan raised the question about whether or not the State Courts will have sufficient training for these Magistrates. Rest assured that the Courts regularly – in fact, it has been in the past and will continue to be the case – conducts training and continuing education for its judicial officers, and that would include the Tribunal Magistrates. I note Mr Lim Biow Chuan's feedback that some users of the Tribunals, however, are not fully aware of the reasons as to why their cases did not succeed. We will continue to work with the State Courts to look into how this can be improved to ensure that the work of the Tribunal Magistrates in terms of how we have come up with the decision and the views of the case can be properly and best conveyed to the users of the Tribunals. Mediation at the Tribunals, something that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah brought up – and I agree with her – that as far as possible, we would like the cases to be mediated, which is why it is now designed to be two-stage. At one stage, it happens outside, online. And if that does not happen, the parties can then be asked to attend mediation. That, as far as we are concerned, is the best outcome in a case.”
“Mr Murali Pillai also raised this point. And I think these are very valid concerns. I would like to assure Members that, since legal representation is not allowed in the Tribunals, save for the very narrow band of persons, the costs for litigants will be kept low. Costs will be calculated according to the general rules, according to governing costs for litigants-in-person. For example, a litigant-in-person will be reasonably compensated for the time he has expended, for example, taking leave to attend the hearing, and other such related costs, in addition to expenses reasonably incurred, for example, transport costs. So, one can see that the paradigm is very different from where one seeks party-and-party costs in a situation where lawyers are involved. I hope this addresses the Members' concerns. In light of these guiding principles and our Courts' own experience and expertise in quantifying cost orders, as Mr Louis Ng pointed out, Order 59 of the Rules of Court already set out the parameters in which cost orders ought to be granted, we do not see the need at present to limit the amount of costs that can be ordered against either party in the Tribunals. But Members should be assured that they will be judiciously considered each time. Finally, I turn to the comments and suggestions which Members raised in relation to proceedings in the Tribunals. As I mentioned at the outset, the guiding principle which underpins these amendments is to facilitate an efficient, effective and inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small claims. The Tribunal Magistrates play a key role in ensuring that the Tribunals meet the desired goals.”
“We must also bear in mind, taking into account Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's suggestions that the model we are trying to build for the Tribunals is really one that is inexpensive, fuss-free as far as possible, and quick. Sometimes, the introduction of lawyers into this does not quite provide for all of those. It may be a little bit less inexpensive, and it may just take a little bit longer. So, we are trying to find the right balance and the Tribunal amendments try to deal with that proposition. Members have asked about the amendments to allow costs to be ordered at the discretion of the Tribunals. Let me say a few words about this. Today, costs can only be imposed in a very narrow situation where a claim is frivolous or vexatious. This has limited the Tribunals’ ability to manage litigants who conduct their cases in an abusive manner. Thus, the amendments allow the Tribunals to order costs at their discretion. The intention is for such cost orders to be made only in the most egregious of cases, where a party has been unusually disruptive, uncooperative or contemptuous, even if the claim itself cannot be said to be frivolous. So, it is really directed at the conduct of the proceedings. One bears in mind that with the amendments that we have in place, there are three stages to the proceedings, as I mentioned at the outset. The process can, in fact, be unreasonably stretched out by an unreasonable litigant and the discretion for costs is designed to give redress to that. Several Members have asked how we can ensure that the practice of awarding costs under the new provision will not discourage litigants with bona fide claims from bringing their claims before the Tribunals, for fear of, and I quote Mr Christopher de Souza, "getting hit with a costs order".”
“Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef queried how frequently the e-Negotiation system on CTJS has been used. Between 10 July 2017 and 15 June 2018, e-Negotiation has been used by parties in 755 cases. In about one-third of those cases, parties reached a settlement online. These are encouraging early indicators. Third, on the affordability of the Tribunals. Allow me to assure Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef that the Tribunals’ cost structure is specifically designed to be affordable to the wider public. Let me just illustrate that with some of the numbers. When filing a claim, a party is required to only pay a lodgement fee. Today, lodgement fees for consumer claims range from $10 for claims up to $5,000 in value, or up to $200 for the maximum limit of a $20,000 claim. It is, otherwise, 1% of the claim amount. For non-consumer claims, the lodgement fees range from $50 for claims up to $5,000, or to $600 for claims up to $20,000, or 3% of the amount in question. Further, in some cases, the successful parties may also apply to recover their fees or disbursements, or a portion of it, from the losing party. Mr Louis Ng mentioned that in a previous Parliamentary Question, the cost was in the range of $400 to $600 for a $2,000 limit. Even in that situation, even before these amendments, the limit was already $10,000 for Tribunal jurisdictional limits. In most cases, parties must appear in person, a point that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised. That, itself, reduces the need to pay legal fees. Parties, however, who require legal assistance at the hearing may also approach the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts for free onsite legal advice. So, free onsite legal advice is provided at the State Courts for any user of the Tribunals who wishes to avail himself or herself of legal advice.”
“Another option is for them to go in person to the Tribunals, where there are student representatives and trained officers from the State Courts who can guide them through the filing process in their own mother tongue. During the hearing itself, Court staff and interpreters are also on hand to provide assistance during proceedings. Parties who are visually impaired or illiterate may, in those cases, be represented by a third party, who may sit in with them and assist them in the course of the hearing. In relation to CJTS, Mr Patrick Tay expressed some concern that an average layperson would find some of the pre-filing questions challenging to answer. He suggested simplifying the language or providing a glossary for Court users’ easy reference. Those are good suggestions. However, as mentioned before, there are trained State Courts’ officers and also student representatives from local law schools who are on hand to assist the users. They assist to answer questions, explain the process of the Tribunals, and manually guide them through the process of filing a claim. That said, we have noted the feedback on how it can be further improved, and we will certainly look into it with the State Courts as part of our efforts to continuously enhance the accessibility of Court services. Mr Patrick Tay also asked if the list of notifications on the points that one should take note of before filing a claim using CJTS may intimidate or otherwise deter some claimants from filing their claims. Our experience so far has been to the contrary, as some claimants have commented that the pre-filing assessment and list of notifications, in fact, helped them better understand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, and see in advance the potential issues of their case so that they are better prepared.”
“By answering a few general questions, claimants can better ascertain the viability of their intended claims and whether those claims can, in the first place, be filed in the Tribunals. This process generates a summary of issues, known as “notifications”, which informs potential claimants of the requirements they must meet or the documents they must prepare to proceed with their claim. This ensures, at the very early stage, that proceedings before the Tribunals progress smoothly, parties will come prepared with the necessary evidence and the documentation to support their case. Parties may then file their claims on the electronic filing system CJTS. On that CJTS platform, parties may, one, engage in e-Negotiation and e-Settlement, as I mentioned at the outset; or two, schedule hearing dates and times in an electronic diary if the settlement is not reached; three, view their case details and correspondence with the Court; or four, submit documents; or fifth, make payment. Several Members suggested that CJTS could be supported by a hotline or call centre, and that special arrangements be made for those who are visually impaired or illiterate. I thank these Members for the opportunity to clarify that, indeed, these avenues are already in place to help members of the public who may not be comfortable navigating CJTS on their own. One option is for them to call the Tribunals at a number that is listed on the website or available on the brochures, if they have any queries on the Tribunals’ process or services. This hotline provides a multilingual service for users who may not speak English.”
“Steps have already been taken to enhance this area. For example, the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons, a set of guidelines on best practices for engaging freelance services, was launched in March 2018 with the support of the Government. We will no doubt convey Mr Desmond Choo’s suggestion to allow certain disputes involving freelancers to be mediated by the tripartite partners to MOM. I turn now to accessibility and affordability of the Tribunals, which both Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Rahayu Mahzam touched on. It is important to ensure accessibility to the Tribunals. There are three aspects to it – awareness, user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness of the Tribunals, and I will deal with all three. First, the State Courts have, through various outreach programmes, educated various segments of the public on the Tribunals and their key features. CASE has also been referring consumers with eligible claims to the Tribunals. This includes elderly consumers who approach CASE. We will look further into the suggestions raised by Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Rahayu Mahzam in this regard, as we continue to work with the State Courts to generate greater awareness about the Tribunals and improve accessibility. Second, efforts have also been taken to ensure that the Tribunals are user-friendly, even for claimants who are less IT-savvy, and, as some Members have pointed out, are in need of assistance, either language-wise or expertise-wise, in navigating the judicial process. As a starting point, the State Courts provide a complimentary pre-filing online service to all potential claimants.”
“As Mr Lim Biow Chuan, President of CASE, correctly pointed out, contractual terms which are substantively unfair, based on widespread international consensus, can still be voided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA). And on that point, Mr Lim Biow Chuan commented on the use of UCTA, that notwithstanding that there is an agreement between parties, if it is shown that it falls within UCTA, the provisions can still be set aside under UCTA. Similarly, CPFTA also provides consumers with protection against unfair practices, such as pressure selling and false claims. Consumers who have reason to believe that sellers have engaged in such practices may also approach CASE with details of these practices for CASE to assist them in seeking redress. In addition, a key way to protect consumers and ensure they have a level bargaining field when disputing a contract is to improve their awareness of institutions, such as the Tribunals, through public education. I thank the various Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, for raising this point, and I will speak about more of this shortly. Mr Saktiandi Supaat queried whether a tenant who has entered a two-year lease contract with an Option to Renew may make a claim in the Tribunals. That, I think, really depends on the context in which it arises, the specific negotiation of that case, and the extent to which parties have regarded that as an Option to Renew, as opposed to a fresh lease. I am not saying that it is not covered, but one needs to look at it quite carefully to determine those legal and factual questions. On a separate note, Mr Desmond Choo asked if the Ministry could work with the tripartite partners to develop industry-specific mechanisms for freelancers. I think he mentioned the gig economy on this.”
“Nonetheless, we assure Members that my Ministry will closely monitor these developments in these new areas and continue to review their suitability for inclusion within the Tribunals' coverage at a later stage. Members also suggested taking stronger measures in relation to cases of consumer claims that fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. Specifically, Mr Lim Biow Chuan queried if businesses could be prohibited from inserting arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers which purport to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to hear any dispute. In a similar vein, Mr Saktiandi Supaat also suggested mandating that all hire purchase contracts include a clause that both parties may approach the Tribunals in the event a dispute arises within two years of entering the contract. Ms Joan Pereira also suggested introducing a two-week cooling-off period for all hire purchase contracts. As a general principle, the Government adopts a balanced approach to supporting a pro-enterprise environment, while at the same time protecting consumers, and I would urge Members to bear in mind that we are looking at it in a very balanced way, and not only from the viewpoint of the consumer. A too heavy-handed intervention in favour of either party could lead to market distortions or unintended consequences. Hence, we wish to be slow to mandate the use of specific clauses in commercial contracts between private individuals and businesses. Likewise, this is why the Government has not introduced cooling-off periods for hire purchase contracts. That is not to say that there is no recourse for unfair terms imposed on consumers today.”
“Various Members have raised the possibility of expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. They suggested that the Tribunals cover other types of claims; that the claim limits could be increased; and the limitation period for claims before the Tribunals could also be lengthened. I am heartened to hear such support for the work of the Tribunals being voiced, to the extent that my fellow Members here in this House agree, or urge, that the jurisdiction be further expanded. I would like to assure Members that we have been, and will continue to, periodically review the jurisdictional claims limits of the Tribunals, and also the types of claims that should come before the Tribunals, to ensure that they continue to remain relevant, given societal changes. In fact, Mr Christopher de Souza's question as to why hire purchase has not been brought in is precisely one of those points, that it is now more prevalent and a lot more germane to what parties seek dispute resolution over, and so they are now part of the rubric of the Tribunals as well. Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have highlighted the newer types of claims arising from, I would say, new consumer behaviour – I think Mr Lim Biow Chuan mentioned o-Bikes as well. These claims for unreturned deposits, yes, they do cause a degree of angst, but they are also new types of claims brought about by somewhat new advents in the new economy. And so, whilst the claims do exist, and they do need to be resolved, I think it would be necessary to study them and the ecosystem in which they occur to determine the extent to which they are suitable for resolution by the Tribunals. Again, I urge all of you to bear in mind that there is nothing to stop these claimants from going to avail themselves of Court services.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for all their comments, suggestions and, ultimately, the unanimous support of the Bill. When the Small Claims Tribunal was first conceived over 20 years ago, its overriding philosophy was to provide a straightforward, quick and inexpensive way of resolving claims of low value. That remains true to this day, and we must strive to keep to that philosophy. While I am grateful for suggestions to further enhance the jurisdiction and accessibility of the Tribunals, and we have heard many today, we must keep in mind the need to delicately balance what we seek to achieve through the Tribunals and what these suggestions might then take the process towards. Whilst many of these suggestions are good ones, and they do take us closer to what it might be like to appear in Court, we must not forget that, at the end of the day, whilst the claims can be brought in the Tribunals, with all its limitations that we have heard about, there is nothing to stop a party from going to Court with lawyers, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has suggested, if they wish to, or without the limits, as some of the other Members have suggested. So, we must bear in mind that at the end of the day, the Tribunals sit in a system, an ecosystem, of a series of options available to a party, and we must bear in mind at the end of the day that we are trying to reach a quick, expeditious and inexpensive resolution. And it is with this philosophy in mind that I address the concerns that have been brought up. I would like to do so with three broad overarching themes, and these are: first, the coverage and jurisdiction of the Tribunals, what do they cover; second, the accessibility and affordability of the Tribunals; and finally, the conduct of proceedings at the Tribunals.”
“The rationale for that change was to ensure that parties will not be put to unnecessary expense, for example, in cases where there is simply no prospect of the appeal succeeding. Clause 16 of the Bill now further refines this procedure by providing that a District Court may, even if it refuses leave to appeal, remit the case back to the tribunal for reconsideration, or order a rehearing presided by a different tribunal magistrate. This gives the District Court greater flexibility and latitude to ensure that justice is done in each individual case. In summary, these amendments are part of our continuous efforts to improve the Tribunals’ processes and enhance access to justice. They will enable the Tribunals to continue to fulfil their mission of providing an efficient, effective and, at the same time, inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small claims. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The tribunal may also direct any party to the proceedings to appear before it, summon any person to give evidence or to produce documents in the proceedings, and give directions for the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the claim. Clause 11 provides that while a tribunal’s proceedings are to be conducted in private, the tribunal may allow certain individuals to be present to either assist in or to observe the proceedings. Such individuals can include mediators, whom I mentioned earlier, who can assist in resolving the claim amicably; or assessors, such as industry experts, who may have the necessary skills and experience to assess and to assist the tribunal at the Adjudication Stage to deal with the industry-specific stage. They can also include law students from the University Court Friends scheme who are assisting the parties on a pro bono basis. Clauses 14 and 15 also give the Tribunals broader powers, including the discretion to: (a) dismiss a claim if the claimant is absent without reasonable cause, and I think one can see why; (b) order a tenant to deliver vacant possession of rented premises in the case of unpaid rent; and (c) order costs against parties generally. The changes I have mentioned will require the Referees of the Tribunals to play a key adjudication and case-management role in proceedings. To better reflect their roles and to align with the nomenclature used in the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), clause 3 of the Bill renames the “Referees” as “tribunal magistrates”. Last, but not least, we have also refined the appeals procedure for cases before the Tribunals. In 2005, we amended the Act to require a party who wishes to appeal against a decision of a tribunal to first obtain leave from the District Court.”
“Finally, if the dispute is still not resolved, parties may then proceed for a hearing on the merits of the claim before a Referee, who will make an order after hearing from both parties, and this I will refer to as the “Adjudication Stage”. The Bill makes various enhancements to the processes outlined above, and I will touch on the key enhancements. Currently, at the Consultation Stage, the Registrar has the power to invite parties to attend a consultation session, where the Registrar will try to effect a settlement acceptable to all parties. However, if that does not resolve the dispute, the Registrar or the tribunal does not have the power to further order the parties to attend mediation even if that may assist the parties in resolving their disputes amicably. To address this situation, clause 7 of the Bill empowers the Registrar or a tribunal to order parties to attend mandatory mediation at the Community Mediation Centre, or before any other person. While this power may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, it will be most helpful for parties to attend mediation at the Consultation Stage. And this is in line with the Tribunals’ objective to promote and facilitate an early settlement of disputes. We have also proposed changes to strengthen the powers of the Tribunals to manage cases. Clause 9 of the Bill requires a tribunal to adopt a judge-led approach at the Adjudication Stage. The tribunal will identify the relevant issues in a case and will guide the parties to adduce the relevant evidence before the tribunal. This will help to focus the attention of parties on key issues, and lead to cost and time savings for all.”
“Clause 20 of the Bill consolidates these different provisions within the framework of the Act to assist those wanting to find out whether their claims fall within the scope of the Act, with the only exception being the claims with regard to CPFTA which falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. This is not referred to in clause 20 of the Bill, but will continue to be provided for in CPFTA itself. To further assist users of the Tribunals, clause 2 of the Bill clarifies how the value of a claim in relation to a contract should be calculated for the purposes of determining whether it falls within the scope of the Act or not. At present, there may be some uncertainty as to whether it is the value of the contract or the value of the quantum of the claim that should apply for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction. The Bill clarifies this by setting out how the value of a claim should be calculated depending on the nature of the claim being brought, for example, depending on whether the claim is for the rescission of a contract, recovery of a progress payment under the contract, or for breach of contract. Currently, parties typically go through three main stages when they file claims at the Tribunals. First, parties will file their claims and monitor their case online through CJTS. Parties will also have the opportunity to negotiate and settle their dispute online, as I mentioned earlier. If it is not resolved at this stage, the Registrar will then invite parties for a consultation session where they will have a second opportunity to resolve the dispute amicably, and this I will refer to as the “Consultation Stage”. That is Stage 2 of the process itself.”
“The new limitation period will give parties more time to negotiate and settle their disputes amicably, whilst ensuring that there remains enough time for them to file their claims should they not settle amicably. It is also aligned with the limitation period for consumer claims in respect of unfair practices under CPFTA, which are also heard by the Tribunals. In expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, we have sought to strike a balance between the objectives of enhancing access to justice while ensuring that the Tribunals stay true to the purpose of providing effective and swift redress for small claims. If the Tribunals’ jurisdiction is expanded too far, they will have to deal with not just an increased caseload but the cases will also involve more complex and complicated legal issues. This is undesirable as cases involving such complex issues are best dealt with in the usual civil Courts which remain accessible and which parties can still avail themselves of. In addition to expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, the Bill also introduces changes to make it easier for Court users to determine if their claim is within the scope of the Act. Currently, these users have to refer to section 5(1) of the Act, as well as other pieces of legislation, such as the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the Housing and Development Act and the Singapore Business Federation Act, where applicable. So, you have to look at different pieces of legislation to then determine if your claim falls within or under those pieces of legislation and can be heard by the Tribunals.”
“After carefully reviewing this issue with key stakeholders, such as the State Courts and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), we have decided to expand the Tribunals’ jurisdiction. Let me explain what the expansion of this jurisdiction will entail. First, the monetary limits of claims filed at the Tribunals. The current claim limit is $10,000 by default, which can be increased to $20,000 if all parties agree. Clause 4, read with clause 2 of the Bill, raises that limit to $20,000 by default, and that limit can also be increased by the consent of all the parties to $30,000. The new claim limits are broadly in line with similar tribunal limits in the UK, Australia and Canada. This will allow more parties to resolve their claims before the Tribunals at less cost using the streamlined procedures available at the Tribunals. Second, the Bill also expands the types of claims which can be brought before the Tribunals. Currently, the Tribunals already hear a variety of claims, such as those relating to contracts for the sale of goods or the provision of services, claims in tort for damages caused to property, as well as to certain tenancy disputes. With the amendments, the Tribunals will be able to hear hire purchase claims under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). This is in addition to certain consumer claims under CPFTA which are already being heard by the Tribunals, such as claims in relation to unfair practices. In addition to raising the monetary limits of claims as well as the types of claims which can be filed, the proposed amendments will also extend the limitation period for lodging a claim in the Tribunals from one year to two years.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Mr Deputy Speaker, the Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill introduces amendments in two main areas. First, it expands the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunals (the Tribunals) and, second, it improves the Tribunals’ processes and strengthens their powers to manage cases. In all, the amendments will strengthen access to justice by allowing the Tribunals to hear more claims in a quicker and more cost-effective manner. The Tribunals were established in 1985 to provide a quick and inexpensive forum to resolve small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers. To this end, the Tribunals’ processes have been designed to be straightforward, inexpensive and quick. Over the years, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has been working closely with the State Courts to review and enhance these processes. For example, in 2017, MinLaw supported the launch by the State Courts of an electronic case filing and management system called the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS) for claims under the Small Claims Tribunals Act (the Act). CJTS benefits Court users by allowing them to file claims in the Tribunals with ease, monitor their case developments and even actively negotiate an amicable settlement with the other party from the comfort of their own homes. This Bill proposes amendments to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and improve their processes, whilst also building on these past initiatives. I will now take the House through the key features of this Bill. Over the years, we have been exploring the possibility of expanding the jurisdiction further so as to allow the Tribunals to decide more claims.”
“Whether such a Court order is granted or not, will be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis, applying again, the relevant IP provisions and laws. Where there is no such Court order, the goods shall be released. Whether an individual is liable for IP infringement or not will be determined by the Courts based on the facts of a particular case. Where the infringement action succeeds, the Court may then, as part of the order, also order that the goods to be destroyed. However, where the infringement action fails or is dismissed or is discontinued, the Court may order that the IPR holder pay compensation to the defendant. The goods will then be returned to the importer or exporter as the case may be. In a situation where no infringement action is taken, any person aggrieved by the seizure may then apply to the Court for an order of compensation for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the seizure. Mr Christopher de Souza raised a question on that, and quite rightly so. The legal regime does protect the person in such a situation where no subsequent follow-up infringement action is then taken by the right holder. The Court may order compensation in such amount as the Court thinks fit. The goods will then be released to the importer or exporter.”
“By definition, in enhancing the border enforcement provisions through this Bill, it necessarily comes with enhanced powers and with some additional degree of intervention. With that, Members have raised several queries on the processes involved where goods are seized, for example, the period of detention, whether they will be destroyed, how a defendant can show that the goods are genuine, and the remedies available where the goods were wrongly detained and found to be non-infringing. I think the majority of the Members raised questions around these few issues. Let me, first, be clear that Customs are not allowed, without more, to destroy the goods which are seized. The various IP Acts all contain a framework to ensure that there is due process in the manner in which seized goods are dealt with, and I will now briefly describe this framework. Upon seizure, Customs will notify IPR holders to verify the authenticity of the goods and commence civil actions for IP infringement against relevant parties within the period specified in Customs’ notice, or any extended period, as may be so notified. The status of the goods will then depend on whether an infringement action is commenced. Where an infringement action is commenced, the importer or exporter will be notified by the IPR holder if he is the defendant to the action and have the opportunity to defend himself in Court. Therefore, to address Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's query, the Court process will entail fact-finding and an evidence-based assessment, in relation to the relevant copyright and IP provisions that are currently in place. Within three weeks of instituting an infringement action, IPR holders will need to obtain a Court order to prevent the release of the goods. So, there is a three-week timeline.”
“Unlike copyright or trade marks, it is difficult for our Customs officers to identify whether particular goods infringe a registered design without any information. However, where a registered design owner files a formal request for seizure with specific information to identify a shipment with goods suspected of infringing registered designs, for example, when the shipment will reach Singapore, our Customs officers can assist in detecting and seizing such goods. I hope that addresses Mr Louis Ng’s queries. Mr Louis Ng also sought clarification on the rationale for the difference between the terminology and definition of "counterfeit trademark goods" between the EUSFTA definitions and section 3(5) and 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act. The definitions in both provisions are substantially similar and Mr Louis Ng may also know that the definition was put into force in the Trade Marks Act in 2004, which is about 14 to 15 years ago, and we have kept that definition throughout. And the intention is to remain with that definition, but the level of obligation would not deviate substantially or materially from the EUSFTA definition. Assoc Prof Fatimah asked whether our border enforcement regime covers parallel imports and goods in travellers' personal luggage. Parallel imports are not counterfeit goods and are, therefore, not considered infringing under our IP laws. Therefore, in such a situation, they would not be detained. However, goods in travellers’ personal luggage may be detained if they are suspected of infringing IP rights and right holders are prepared to take action. This has been the case even before these amendments apply. I will now turn to questions on our border enforcement processes.”
“Therefore, to address Mr Christopher de Souza's question, there are no similar international obligations for geographical indications and registered designs, and we, therefore, make no distinction between goods in transit with a local consignee and goods in transit without a local consignee for geographical indications and registered designs. To aid Customs, IPR holders can provide information on shipments that are suspected to contain IP infringing goods. Mr Louis Ng also asked why the Bill does not implement border enforcement measures for patents and ex officio action for registered designs, as part of our obligations under Article 10.50 of EUSFTA. Article 10.50 provides that "the customs authorities shall adopt a range of approaches to identify shipments containing counterfeit trademark goods, pirated copyright goods, pirated design goods, and counterfeit geographical indication goods". There is no obligation, under this Article, to implement border enforcement measures for patent infringing goods. In addition, it is also impracticable to do so because the detection of a suspected patent infringing good generally requires a higher level of specialised technical knowledge and expertise. Patents are, therefore, unlike copyright, trade marks, registered designs and geographical indications, where a visual inspection can usually be used to detect the IP infringement. Given the high level of specialisation required to detect patent infringing goods, it is not feasible for Customs officers to make such assessments. There are also no international obligations to take ex officio action in relation to registered designs.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and for their full support of the Bill. I also appreciate the IPSA's inputs to Mr Louis Ng and I thank them for their contributions as well. Members have raised several points for clarification and I would break them down into four main areas. They are, firstly, the scope of the Bill; secondly, the border enforcement process and how it compares with other jurisdictions; and thirdly, Customs’ powers to request and provide information or documents; and finally, the timeline for implementing the Bill. I will address them in turn. In relation to the scope of the Bill, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Christopher de Souza enquired specifically about goods in transit. Goods in transit are, by definition, here for only a short duration of time. This makes any border enforcement action challenging. In addition, enforcement actions have to be balanced against the need to maintain our port efficiency. So, generally, for goods in transit, Customs officers do not detain the goods. However, Customs officers will still perform the usual checks, and when they detect suspected IP infringing goods, they will convey the information to their counterparts in the destination country. This then allows for effective enforcement to be undertaken in the destination country. However, as part of our existing international obligations, for suspected copyright infringing copies or counterfeit trade mark goods in transit which are consigned to a local party, Customs officers have the power to initiate ex officio action to detain such goods, because there is a local consignee.”
“The changes sought under this Bill, together with the enhanced border enforcement measures under the GI Act passed already in April 2014, will be implemented in three stages to meet Customs’ operational needs, provide businesses with sufficient time to adapt and also correspond with our obligations under the EUSFTA, which is in the process of being ratified. Sufficient notice will be provided before the commencement of the relevant provisions. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, these amendments will ensure Singapore’s obligations under the EUSFTA are implemented and also cement and enhance Singapore’s reputation as a jurisdiction that respects IP. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The second set of new features are powers for Customs to detain and provide rights holders with information relating to the infringing goods seized or detained by Customs. These powers will be provided for in the various IP Acts, and are set out in clauses 4, 7, 25, 39, 47, 53, 57, 60 and 78 of the Bill. They are intended to complement Customs’ border enforcement duty and facilitate right holders in instituting IP infringement proceedings. The power to provide information to right holders will be a narrow exception to Customs’ obligations to keep any information obtained under the Customs Act and the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act confidential. The information to be provided will be limited to the names and contact details of any person connected with the import or export of the seized or detained goods that are necessary for instituting IP infringement proceedings. In order to guard against right holders abusing this power to “fish” for information, the information sought will only be provided after Customs have seized the infringing goods, and the IP rights holders have provided Customs with a security deposit and supporting documents evidencing their IP rights. The third feature of the Bill involves standardising and clarifying the terms and provisions relating to border enforcement across the various IP Acts. For example, clauses 25, 47 and 78 of the Bill will clarify the processes for ex officio seizures in the Copyright Act, the Geographical Indications Act and the Trade Marks Act. These changes will streamline Customs' border enforcement operations and procedures.”
“In addition, this Bill will standardise and clarify the terms and provisions relating to border enforcement across the various IP Acts. I will now take the House through the main features of this Bill. First, the Bill will implement our EUSFTA obligations to enhance existing border enforcement measures in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act and establish a border enforcement regime in the Registered Designs Act. Currently, a right-holder-initiated action under the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act is limited to only suspected infringing goods which are to be imported into Singapore. No such equivalent power is found in the Registered Designs Act currently. The amendments in the Bill will now allow Customs to seize, on the right holders’ request, (a) goods which are suspected of infringing copyright or trade marks that are to be exported, and (b) goods which are suspected of infringing registered designs that are imported or are to be exported. These measures are set out in Part 1, Division 2; Part 3; and Part 4, Division 2 of the Bill. An owner of a valid copyright or registered trade mark in Singapore, or a licensee with the power to give a notice of seizure, will be able to avail themselves of these new measures. The same applies to an owner or an exclusive licensee of a registered design. Similar safeguards under the existing border enforcement regime will also apply to ensure that these new measures are not abused. For example, right holders must provide a security deposit if they would like Customs to seize certain suspected infringing goods. Also, a person aggrieved by the seizure can apply to the Court for compensation, if the right holder fails to take infringement action after filing a request for seizure.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.” Under our current Intellectual Property (IP) border enforcement regime, Singapore Customs (Customs) can seize or detain goods that are suspected to have infringed trademarks or copyright at the borders in two different situations. First, upon the IP right holders' request, that is, right holder-initiated actions, for imports only. Second, by ex officio action, that is, Customs acting on their own volition, for imports, exports and goods in transit with local consignees. Following the conclusion of the European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) in 2014, Singapore agreed to add new border enforcement measures to deal with goods infringing various IP rights. As such, amendments are required for our Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, Registered Designs Act and Geographical Indications Act, collectively known in this speech as the "various IP Acts". The border enforcement measures for geographical indications have already been introduced in the new Geographical Indications Act (GI Act), that was passed in April 2014 but not yet brought into force. This Bill now seeks to amend the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act and the Registered Designs Act to implement our EUSFTA obligations as follows. Firstly, to enhance existing border enforcement measures in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act; and second, to establish a new border enforcement regime in the Registered Designs Act. Next, the Bill will provide new powers for Customs to obtain and provide information relating to the goods they seized or detained to facilitate the taking of infringement action.”
“Mr Chairman, in order to better prepare our students to be skilled and competent and to be able to hit the ground running when they enter the workforce, it is important that they receive hands-on training in skillsets which dovetail into and complement the industry sectors they are trained for. This not only provides our industries with well-trained and upskilled employees but also gives the new trainees an opportunity to master the trade from an early stage. In this light, the Work-Learn Technical Diploma (WLTD) programme, which is about to commence shortly for ITE graduates, is very much to be welcomed. This programme provides graduates with first-hand experience to learn, practise and do at the same time. Could the Minister provide an update on the WLTD programme, including how many have applied for this programme, which industry sectors have seen the greatest interest, and whether there are plans to expand this programme and in what direction? In addition, could the Minister also provide an update on the SkillsFuture Work Study degree programme: what has been the take-up rate for this programme? What has been the feedback so far from students' and participating employers? Can this programme also be enhanced? And are there plans to grow the number of applicable industries and participating partnering employers?”
“Chairman, Sir, the Edusave awards and bursaries scheme has provided an excellent opportunity to our students to incentivise them, motivate them and give them a platform on which they can celebrate their achievements. The extension of the Edusave awards to non-academic achievements has also been very well-received. The news that this already very popular scheme has been given additional resourcing, particularly targeted for the lower- to middle-income, has been very well-received. The programme has proven useful not only to defray some of the costs of education for the family but also provides an opportunity for students to use this to tap on school-based enrichment programmes to enhance holistic learning beyond the boundaries of the classroom or the textbook. Can the Minister please elaborate further on what enrichment options there might be?”
“The MOE website indicates that students who are keen on an activity which may not be offered by the school could seek the school's approval to set up that activity. How often has this been done and, in any event, is it realistic? Nutritional Health Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, Sir, in recent years, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and MOE have been concerned about the nutritional health of school children in two aspects, namely, healthier food and a balanced diet, to fight obesity and to get young people to adopt better eating habits. This is all good. I would like to ask the Minister what percentage of schools have adopted the Healthy Meals in Schools Programme since 2011 to date. Also, how much more are students paying for these healthy meals on average and are we making sure students from low-income households can afford the meals? Recently, there has been some public discussions about mealtimes as more schools move to single sessions. Parents are concerned that the children are eating late lunches in the mid-afternoon and not having enough time to eat snacks during recess time due to the scheduling of classes. While nutritionists say that there are no set hours for children to have their meals, they also advise that children should have three main meals and two to three snacks at regular hours. They should be eating every three hours. I understand that MOE leaves it to the schools to decide on their daily schedules. Nevertheless, MOE could reassure the public by conducting a survey of all schools on their meal and snack scheduling and provide an advisory for regular recess and lunch breaks to ensure students would never go hungry during the school day. Financial Support for Students”
“And should there be sufficient interest and sufficient talent demonstrated, the school invariably would also take the additional active role of identifying and eventually nurturing that talent. Sports, therefore, offer an educational platform for our children which cannot be easily replicated. On that score, I would like to raise a few queries and have some suggestions for the Minister's consideration. Do schools in Singapore have sufficient breadth, in terms of the variety and range of sports offered? This is important because not every child can afford or have an opportunity to be exposed to sports outside of school. How is anyone going to know if he or she can be good at sports if they have no opportunity to try that sport? So, the initial formative years in their primary school would be crucial. For instance, not offering, say, hockey or badminton as a school co-curricular activity (CCA) option would quite likely mean that the child might never be exposed to that sport. This, in turn, then limits the selection base from which a young budding talent might be identified and, in turn, then subsequently limits the base from which national athletes could be selected. From a resourcing perspective, I understand that it would, of course, not be possible for every school to offer every sport. But could more be done to enhance the range of options available? Could, for example, a central body be set up, like the Co-Curricular Activities Branch (CCAB), which can then administer and offer sporting options which may not be quite so popular, quite so mainstream, and, therefore, not available in many of the schools? 4.00 pm Alternatively, is MOE working with Sport SG or Active SG in promoting sporting options to our school children and make sports more accessible?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, there are a few fundamental tenets of a child's education which I believe most of us, if not all, will subscribe to. First, always be prepared to try something new ‒ push the envelope, break new ground, do something we have never done. Who knows, it might turn out that you will enjoy the new adventure, arise to a fresh challenge? Second, fail at something. Being always or even often successful is no good to a young child. Learn to lose and be gracious in defeat. But also learn from losing. Pick up, dust off, try again, be stronger and better the next time round. This also teaches resilience. Third, we have to work as a team. No man is an island, and no one functions in silos. Our children have to be able to work and play with one another and to support, complement, encourage and cheer one another on. They have to learn to come together to make a cohesive team, a team which would be stronger than the sum of its parts. Fourth, hard work. Nothing ever comes without hard work. It takes a lot of hard work to become good at anything, and even more hard work to remain good and stay ahead of the competition. There are no short cuts. These are all simple basic values, but the foundation and cornerstone for bringing up the women and men of tomorrow, the leaders of our next generation. I believe, Sir, that all of these are best taught, not in the classroom, but on the playing field. And I am quite sure most in this House would, I hope, agree with that. Very often, a child's first encounter with sports, especially team sports, would be in school when they first enrolled for their primary education. Schools, therefore, play a crucial role in being the first mover in introducing sports into our children's lives.”
“Mr Chairman, land is not only a finite but extremely scarce resource in Singapore, as this House has been hearing last week. There are many competing uses of land in Singapore, for industrial, residential, sports, recreation, community, social spaces, each one fulfilling a different but necessary objective. Judicious and thoughtful land use planning is thus required to strike the right balance and optimise our land resources. With this in mind, could I ask the Minister for an update on the following? First, what considerations are taken into account when allocating land resources and how are the competing interests properly balanced? Second, can there be more dual-use facilities, for example, at sports facilities in schools, which can be used on weekends as a dual purpose? Third, when is the concept plan next expected to be reconsidered and reviewed, particularly in light of the population objectives and other infrastructural needs that we have? Finally, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Minister to consider a question of local consideration for me where, at Joo Chiat, there are four old blocks of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats at the junction of East Coast Road and Siglap? The Minister knows very well. They are very quaint, very nice, short low-rise five-storey buildings. They were built in the 1960s and they are standing till today although the residents have been moved out for the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). May I ask if it is possible to at least retain a part of this old precinct instead of turning it into another commercial and retail space which will just add to the congestion and also the traffic woes that I already face at Siglap? It would help a lot if we could have it turned into community spaces. Improving Estate Administration Process”
“Could the Minister also consider other types of qualifications, aside from having just the specialist diploma, including certifications from professional bodies, university degrees in security and other qualifications, which are very much practical in nature on the ground, and from people who have vast experience, because security is one industry where leaving aside the books, leaving aside the difficulty in language, experience counts for a lot more than what one might read from the textbooks?”
“Security threats to common installations and public spaces in Singapore are very real concerns. At the same time, the security industry is facing a serious manpower crunch. Whilst technology and new advances in security devices, drones and the like can help plug the gap, there remains a need for well-qualified and experienced security consultants. The Infrastructure Protection Act (IPA) was enacted last year to enhance the protection of certain infrastructure in Singapore against security risk. The IPA requires the submission of security plans for approval to the commissioner and, subsequently, the implementation of the measures in the plan after approval. The plan is the foundation of an enhanced protection of special developments and infrastructure under IPA. It is, therefore, critical that there are sufficient, well-qualified and recognised professionals who can come up with and implement robust and well-considered security plans. At the launch of the security ITM, Second Minister Josephine Teo, who also launched a new Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) pathway for security consultancy leading to a new specialist diploma in security consultancy. May I ask if there are plans to enhance and broaden the qualification criteria for this? Taking a leaf out of my colleague Dr Tan Wu Meng who spoke earlier, could there be more options for persons who are otherwise interested in this industry but find that the bar to entry to the industry is too high, for reasons Dr Tan cited?”
“Would some of these steps include developing a strong after-care support network for the inmate and his or her family which, in fact, can be set up even during the period of incarceration in order to improve the prospects of successful reintegration? Home Team Transformation”
“Our legislation seeks to help offenders find a path back into mainstream life in order to be active, contributing members of society, after they have spent their time in prison. For instance, the Registration of Criminals Act was amended in 2005 to allow those convicted of less serious crimes to have their record considered spent if they did not re-offend for a period of five years. This helps because, upon reaching the five-year period, such offenders will be able to probably say that they do not have a further criminal conviction record. Rehabilitation and, particularly, reintegration of ex-offenders as responsible citizens have become one of the core tenets of our criminal justice system. If the ex-offender is not able to find his place back in society, the prospect of his re-offending becomes much higher. Reintegration, however, is a prolonged process, not one-off. Hence, the various networks set up to link up the various organisations, including voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), the groups affiliated with the National Council of Social Services (NCSS), MSF, Statutory Boards like the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE), or the Yellow Ribbon Project, which is most well-known, are all useful. But I would suggest that much more is needed to change the attitude and perception the society has towards ex-offenders, in order that the prejudice and stigma of reintegration into society does not become as much of a bar in society as it was in prison for the ex-offender. In that context, can I ask the Minister what further steps can be taken to enhance an ex-offender's reintegration back into society?”
“There is a serious social cost arising from the breakup of families of addicts, the drop or lack of productivity, the cost of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. There is also the problem caused by drug-related crimes, commonly stealing, housebreaking, robbery, all of which go towards supporting the habit, and they lend themselves to a less safe Singapore. It is clear that we must continue the vigilance and the absolute zero-tolerance policy against drug abuse. To that end, can I ask the Minister to outline the steps taken to continue the fight against drug abuse? In particular, what additional steps can be taken to particularly focus on and educate potential new young abusers? What further strategies can be employed to make preventive drug education more effective not only to educate, but to proactively encourage and promote a drug-free lifestyle amongst the young? 1.15 pm Youth Drug Abuse”
“Mr Chairman, as my colleague Mr Christopher de Souza has outlined earlier, the two most concerning statistics from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) report in 2017 are: firstly, that the proportion of new drug abusers, even if the absolute numbers may have dropped slightly by proportion, as Mr de Souza said, 40% of drug abusers arrested are new abusers. Secondly, they are young, because two-thirds of those arrested are under 30 years old. Third, the common type of drug abuse, the methamphetamine, continues, by far, to be No 1 by about some distance. For new abusers, methamphetamine abusers also account for the highest proportion, being 80% of all new abusers. These numbers tell us that there is an increasing number of new abusers who are young, with a choice of drug being methamphetamine, which is fast gaining popularity. It is a drug which is synthetically manufactured, which makes it easier to produce, and it is no coincidence that of worldwide seizures of drugs, methamphetamine constitutes the highest proportion, out of which the greatest volume seized come from East and Southeast Asia. Drug production facilities are known to be located near to Singapore, which places our country at a greater risk of having those drugs come onto our shores. In fact, just last week, Indonesian authorities seized 1.6 tonnes of crystal meth, hidden on a Singapore-flagged ship, plying the waters between Sumatra and Singapore. Sir, the drug problem is, indeed, a tragedy, not only to the individual drug abuser who suffers from the addiction and how much it affects his health, his well-being and his position in life, the society at large also suffers as a consequence of the addiction.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two follow-up questions. The first is that I understood from the answer that Batch 10 nominations have not been done. Can the Senior Minister of State please confirm that because my understanding is that Batch 10 nominations had been submitted previously? My second question is for the EUP Programmes. As the Senior Minister of State knows, the private estates do not have support from either Town Council Upgrading Programmes, Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) or Housing and Development Board (HDB) Upgrading Programmes. So, to that extent, private estates really rely on EUP Programmes to upgrade and renew the facilities, including drains, culverts, sidewalks, roads and so on. Given that the EUP Programme for Batch 9 has been suspended and there is no timeframe for Batch 10, would the Ministry consider accelerating the programme, expediting it and, perhaps, giving more priority to constituencies which are either substantially or wholly private estates?”