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 42 of 45.
“The Senior Minister of State mentioned that the sooner this is emplaced, the better. May I ask when it is intended that this be gazetted and to be taking effect?”
“These are major restructuring jurisdictions, and the ability to hold joint-hearings, such as by video conference, with the objective of increasing cooperation, aligning positions and cutting costs, can only benefit the insolvent company. Madam, the amendments in this Bill are critical to the enhancement of Singapore as an international debt restructuring hub. London and New York have long been regarded as the dominant force in this area. In a recent publication by Global Restructuring Review on 1 March 2017 just last week, it was reported that this "traditional hegemony of London and New York" is facing competition from Singapore, following the concerted push to make ourselves a leading restructuring hub for the Asia Pacific. The amendments which this Bill seeks to introduce are an integral part of that effort. With that, I support the Bill, Madam.”
“Currently, the provisions in the Companies Act do not assist in the facilitation of cross-border insolvencies. Take the example of a company in Singapore which wants to enter into a scheme of arrangement but has subsidiaries in other jurisdictions where the real value resides. It would be no use for the holding company to apply for a scheme and a moratorium in Singapore, only to have creditors take action against his other assets located in other jurisdictions. In fact, this was an issue which came up in a recent High Court decision in the Pacific Andes case. This is where the UNCITRAL Model Law comes in to supplement our insolvency laws. Under this framework, a foreign insolvency practitioner can apply to the Singapore Court for recognition of insolvency or restructuring proceedings in another country. When recognition is granted, the Court then has a range of options from which to grant relief. Likewise, a scheme manager in Singapore can go to a jurisdiction which has adopted the Model Law for assistance. For example, he can go to a foreign court to ask for a moratorium. Other countries, like Singapore, which have adopted the Model Law, include the US, the UK, Australia, Japan and Korea, amongst others, and these are the leading jurisdictions in which restructurings take place. Finally, Madam, in connection with the cross-border efforts, I note also that our Singapore Courts have recently embarked on a novel and ground-breaking initiative. In October 2016, the Singapore Judiciary hosted the first Judicial Insolvency Network conference. This led to guidelines for the communication, coordination and cooperation in cross-border insolvencies. Singapore, Delaware and New York have already signed up to it, with Australia, England and Wales expected to follow.”
“It is only allowed in appropriate circumstances and the Court must be satisfied that there is "adequate protection" given to an existing security interest holder. This, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned, draws inspiration from the US Chapter 11 model. The rationale for the above safeguard was that new lending should create new value for the company such that it is in a position to protect the interests of the security holder, whether by cash payments or by providing another form of security. In this way, the Courts are called upon to "assess the viability of the purpose behind the proposed financing". The Bill facilitates rescue financing for distressed companies whilst also managing any entailing risks. The US experience in Chapter 11 proceedings has been that rescue financings are invariably value enhancing and are usually associated with a higher probability of successful recovery. I hope that, with these amendments, the same will be seen in Singapore. Finally, I look at the last amendment in the context of the UNCITRAL Model Law being adopted. The Model Law was designed not to make insolvency laws in different countries uniform, but to supplement existing laws. As I previously mentioned, it is now commonplace for businesses to be cross-border. The insolvency practitioner managing the restructuring will then have to coordinate different moving parts, grapple with foreign procedures, regulations, laws and the like. A degree of cooperation is thus much needed between the Courts and the insolvency practitioners from different countries. It is far more productive and cost-efficient for cross-border insolvencies to be coordinated from one "main" jurisdiction.”
“That is why I welcome the amendments which allow for a company to be placed into judicial management as long as it "is likely to become" unable to pay its debts. This is a lower threshold and, in my view, a far more sensible one. Fourth, rescue-financing will now be encouraged under the Companies Act. New financing is often crucial for ailing companies, as it provides funds, for example, to pay urgent operational expenses, provide working capital and so on. Quite understandably, however, an insolvent company in such a situation is unlikely to be flushed with options when it comes to new financing. Financial institutions will not want to risk throwing good money after bad. As such, companies in financial distress typically face severe liquidity problems, meaning they cannot meet their current liabilities. It would be futile to put such a company into a scheme or judicial management without also having the ability to facilitate a financial solution to its liquidity problems. The rescue finance provisions, therefore, provide an option for companies to get new funds in as part of their restructuring exercise. The amendments incentivise and encourage financial institutions to provide rescue financing, by giving the Courts the power to grant priority or security in relation to the debt created under the rescue financing arrangements. In this respect, the new provisions allow a variety of options with varying degrees of guarantee of recovery. For example, the Court could order that the debt rank in priority or it could order that the debt be secured by a security interest that ranks higher than an existing one. At the same time, the Bill also introduces safeguards which will be scrutinised and policed by the Courts.”
“The Court must be satisfied that the scheme does not discriminate unfairly among the classes and it must be fair and equitable to the dissenting class of creditors. Very often, a minority number of creditors hold a tactical leverage in restructurings to try to negotiate a better position for themselves, even if they hold only a small percentage of the debts. I, therefore, think this change is a welcome one, which calibrates the playing field a little more in favour of the debtor company and its majority creditors, without compromising the position of other dissenting creditors. Third, it will now be easier for companies to apply for judicial management. Under the current Companies Act, the Court must be satisfied that the company "is" or "will be" unable to pay its debts, before allowing the application to succeed. As noted by ILRC in 2013, this strict test causes companies to turn to judicial management only when they are already hopelessly insolvent, by which time, it would often be too far gone for a judicial manager to be effective in turning the company around. And that perhaps explains why judicial management in Singapore has been less successful in rehabilitating companies. This, in my view, is a pity, as judicial management is otherwise a very useful option in our arsenal of restructuring tools. A Court-appointed Judicial Manager is usually an independent professional advisor, coming in to manage the affairs of a company in a difficult period, lending assurance that the creditors to the company need. To allow the judicial management regime to be more effective, it ought to be possible to implement it at an earlier stage to give distressed companies a real prospect of success.”
“At the same time, the Bill also strikes a balance between the interests of the debtor company and its secured and unsecured creditors. The company is required to give information on its financial affairs to its creditors. The Court takes all of this into account and is then empowered to grant a number of different restraining orders which can be ordered individually or in combination, as necessary or as appropriate. As such, the Court can bespoke the scope of the moratorium and its terms to fit the specific circumstances of each case and need not order a moratorium over security enforcement, if necessary. Second, the new cram-down provisions which the Senior Minister of State mentioned will better allow judicial control of schemes. As the Senior Minister of State outlined, the current regime requires there to be a threshold of 75% by value and 50% in number before a scheme can even be presented to Court. In other words, the Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain any scheme proposal that does not even meet this threshold. In the case of some companies, one class of creditors could have just a very few number of creditors and this could then, by way of this very minority number of creditors, derail the entire scheme. Commentators have said that this is a "major impediment" to the success of the scheme for distressed companies. The new cram-down provisions, however, meet this criticism nicely. They allow the company or one of its creditors to apply to Court for approval of the scheme, notwithstanding that it is objected to by a class of creditors. At the same time, there are safeguards to protect these rights of the objecting creditors.”
“Third, I would suggest that this is also timely for the reasons the Senior Minister of State has mentioned. Since the last amendment to these regimes, the way we do business now is very different; there are a lot of cross-border aspects of the business, and many companies are located in several parts of the world. For example, a company may be headquartered in one country but have branches in others, and therefore, assets, interests, creditors or debtors are located across different jurisdictions. There had been a slew of enhancements to the regime and, as a practitioner in this area, I can say that it has been broadly welcomed by insolvency practitioners from the finance industry, banks and the companies. I wish to focus on five of those amendments which the Senior Minister of State has mentioned. First, the proposed section 211B(1) widens the circumstances in which a company can obtain a moratorium when seeking such a scheme or compromise. The moratorium is crucial because it suspends actions against a debtor company. Without a moratorium, a scramble usually takes place when creditors think that someone else is going to steal a march on them and, consequently, everyone moves in to liquidate the company. This undermines any prospect of being able to reach a more beneficial arrangement. It drives a company towards litigation and, ultimately, kills value in the company. In contrast, a moratorium holds the line and keeps all creditors on an even keel. This is vital, so that companies in distress can have some "breathing space" in order to put in place an effective and mutually beneficial rescue plan. In that context, the automatic 30-day moratorium upon an application being made in Court is very much welcomed. This is necessary to give efficacy to the moratorium.”
“In the first half of 2016, there were 118 winding up applications in Singapore, out of which 85 companies were then put into liquidation. This is high when compared to the previous 10 years. In the second half 2016 alone, companies like Swissco Holdings, Swiber Holdings, Technics Oil and Gas Ltd, Ezra Holdings, all major players in the beleaguered oil offshore and marine industry, went into one form of insolvency arrangement or another. The adverse run-on effects of the insolvency and collapse of a company cannot be underestimated. It is not just the closure of a business, but also the loss of jobs and livelihoods for many. The offshore and marine industry, probably the hardest hit sector in the recent downturn, has some 88,000 workers employed in that sector alone. The threat of the loss of jobs in this industry as well as others is thus a real issue, close to the hearts of many Singaporeans. There are also other stakeholders whose interests we need to consider, such as financial institutions with loan exposures to distressed companies. The rehabilitation of such companies in financial trouble is, therefore, not just about crunching numbers, generating business or increasing profits. There is a wider social interest at stake. It is in this context and backdrop that this Bill has been introduced, and it is aimed at several key objectives. First, it seeks to set up a more conducive legal framework with a view to ultimately saving businesses, preserving values and jobs. Second, it aims to make our insolvency and restructuring laws more robust, more rescue-friendly but, at the same time, nimble and nuanced enough to balance and protect the competing interests of relevant parties.”
“Madam, before I start, I would like to declare my interest as having been a member on ILRC and also on the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring, mentioned by the Senior Minister of State earlier. I will focus my speech on the third basket of the amendments which the Senior Minister of State has mentioned earlier. Mdm Speaker, the ability to restructure the business of a distressed company and rehabilitate it back to good financial health is as important as setting up a good business in the first place. Where such restructuring is carried out successfully, cost efficiently and relatively quickly, all stakeholders, including creditors, investors, shareholders and employees, benefit. For companies that have fallen on hard times, but with a sound underlying business, restructuring is preferable to the alternative of liquidation. It preserves value. In contrast, in a liquidation, the company's assets will be broken up, sold for recovery and distributed to creditors, usually at fire sale prices. Further, in an economic downturn, our restructuring regime allows struggling companies to quickly resume normal business operations which enhances the growth and sustainability of our economy. The need for Singapore to have a robust insolvency framework is underscored by the difficulties which the global economy has faced in recent times. In 2016, we witnessed increasing global uncertainty, climbing interest rates and a downturn in oil prices. Global corporate defaults were at their highest since the 2008 financial crisis, economic growth slowed and the economic outlook was severely dampened. In Singapore, we have not been spared.”
“To do that, our financial assistance and social transfers must be far more nimble and adept at identifying those who really need our help. Again, in Minister Chan's words, "we have also to help the temporary poor, those who, for financial reasons, fall into hardship." Madam, in closing, I would just leave the House with the quote that I found in the Guardian which, I think, aptly summaries the point I am trying to make, and it goes like this. This is a Guardian article in January 2013, "Means testing hurts people who are neither very rich or very poor because there is always a cut-off point. Some who are far from well-off and who would generally benefit from them are excluded. There are also many people who seem comfortable to the outside world, but who do not necessarily feel so themselves. So, they are frugal for fear of rainy days, not realising that the rain has already come." Household Income as a Criterion”
“In other words, if a person lives in a property where the annual value is higher than a 1- or 2-room HDB flat, he or she would probably not qualify for the social assistance programme. And this comes on top of the fact that the annual values for properties are adjusted from time to time, based on market movements and with no correlation to that person's income status or income level. Fourth, there is little, if any, consideration for the particular financial demands of the household in question, the individual's specific needs of the household in question. Each household is different. What could be a decent household income for a family of three or four could be very different for a multigenerational household with elderly parents and in-laws in need of medical care and, at the same time, young children in school. We really have to look beyond just one measure of assessable income and annual value and consider other factors as well and also consider dependants who rely on that household income. Some of these cases could well be long-term chronic ones, but there are others which could be short term caused by sudden catastrophic events like the loss of a key family breadwinner or the loss of a job, or a sudden acute need for medical care. All of these are likely scenarios, but our means-testing criteria just do not respond well to any of these happening. Consequently, there are families which, because of no or insufficient assistance rendered at the right time, fall into cracks and into acute difficulty. To take a leaf out of Minister Chan's ethos when he was at the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), the critical challenge is how to ensure that today's middle income does not end up as tomorrow's bottom.”
“Whatever "wealth" they possess is almost entirely locked up in their property and cannot be utilised. I would say it would be unrealistic to ask these persons to cash out, to unlock the value of their property by selling, uproot themselves in their golden years, depart from their daily routine, live away from the community they have grown accustomed to and their way of life just to cash out on their asset. Second, in the means-test which includes the criterion for annual value, it applies, as I said earlier, irrespective of whether the resident actually owns the property or not. So, a person may be renting a home or even just a room in a home in a private house or apartment, or he may just be squatting at a friend's or relative's apartment on goodwill terms. In all of these cases, that person would not qualify for those programmes which consider as one of their means criteria the type of dwelling home in which they live. But surely, we agree that renting a small private apartment or a room in that apartment does not automatically mean that that person is financially better off than an HDB dweller. In fact, I would argue probably worse off. Third, the annual value of $13,000 has been fixed as a threshold for the last five years at least, as far as I could tell. Leaving aside the fact that the $13,000 annual value is really a hypothetical value for persons who cannot or should not be made to unlock the value of their homes, it cannot be realised. The bar has actually been set pretty low. Thirteen thousand dollars in annual value means that any property which can fetch a market rent of about $1,100 per month would not qualify based on the latest 2016 fourth quarter median rental statistics, only 1- or 2-room HDB flats would then qualify.”
“It suggests to me that the annual value has become too much as a simple surrogate for accessing eligibility criteria for financial assistance. The annual value is frequently used as a measure of wealth, but it is really not. In a publication by the Department of Statistics titled "Key Household Income Trends 2016", HDB dwellers, on average, received about four times the amount of Government transfers when compared to private estate dwellers in the same year in 2016. I am not against using accessible income or annual value as one of the indicators. We have to start somewhere. But it cannot be the start point and end point for such a measure. Nor can it be the only measure. I believe we can and should do more to refine our means-testing criteria so that it is no longer a blunt and ineffective tool. It may be simple to administer, but it is not the most equitable. First, whilst the ability to afford private housing may generally be indicative of wealth, there are clear exceptions. And these undoubtedly include a number of residents, especially elderly ones, who have no income and little savings. The same report by the Department of Statistics in 2016 found that 6.5% of households in the lowest 10% of monthly household income live in private properties. The landed properties in which some of them live, tend to be old and ill-maintained. And their elderly inhabitants usually struggle with their day-to-day expenses. 3.00 pm For this group, their private or even landed houses are not indicators of wealth, but simply a home where they have lived their entire lives. They probably acquired it many years ago on very modest incomes but could never dream of being able to acquire it today. They are the classic asset-rich but cash-poor residents.”
“Madam, I tried this last year. I will try again this year with a few extra minutes added to my clock. Madam, not everyone who lives in private estates is financially independent or self-sufficient. Many of them, especially retirees and elderly singles, need a measure of financial assistance, even though they may, at the same time, live in or own a private property. If we accept the above proposition as being true, then something has to be done about the way in which we means-test and administer assistance and social transfers. One of the key assessment criteria in our means-testing programmes − and I accept and acknowledge that there is a whole range of these programmes − is the annual value of a home in which they live in, not own, but live in. For instance, the Silver Support scheme. This is only for Housing and Development Board (HDB) dwellers, with the amount of payout dependent on the HDB flat type. Likewise, the U-Save vouchers and the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) rebates are only applicable to HDB dwellers. Or the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS). To even qualify, applicants must be staying, not owning, in a property not exceeding an annual value of $13,000. Likewise, grants and subsidies, such as the special outpatient clinic, foreign domestic worker grants, all of them include the annual value of the home as one of the eligible cumulative criteria. WIS has been part of our social safety net since 2007. It is meant to incentivise less educated Singaporeans in the older age group to enter and stay in the workforce. Why then should this turn on what type of housing the applicant stays in as long as the other income criteria are also met?”
“A clarification to the Minister. On the question of applying discretion to a child who has not met the cut-off points, I think the answer was that there is DSA available to the child. But would the Minister agree that this issue of DSA, applying that context is actually quite different? Because a child may have missed the cut-off point for a number of reasons and the school may wish to take the child for any number of reasons, such as the child has got good service and leadership records in the school, such as the child may be a head prefect or vice head prefect, something which is not easily captured or there is no equivalent in the DSA system.”
“Mdm Chairman, there is no doubt that in recent times, the arts and culture scene in Singapore has become a lot more vibrant, immeasurably enriching and a lot more diverse. There is also no denying that the arts stimulate creativity, reimagination and out-of-the box innovation. These traits are crucial to Singapore as we look towards the future economy which will be challenging. We need to nurture the appreciation of arts and culture from a young age. We see an improvement in literacy when young people take part in drama and library activities and better performance in Mathematics and Languages when they take part in structured music activities. The relationship has been studied and it is undeniable. 1.00 pm Hence, what steps are being considered to foster the appreciation of arts and culture amongst our students at an early age? Secondly, can the Minister provide an update as to what steps are being taken to meet a constantly growing interest in creative arts tertiary education and what assistance can be given to allow creative arts graduates to deepen and enhance their skills so that they become more relevant to industry needs and also in terms of enhancing these students' own career prospects? Financial Assistance for Post-secondary Education Institutions”
“I would also like to join my colleagues in urging the Minister to consider returning the discretion to consider these admissions back to the principals and the teachers. They know the child best. They have dealt with the children. Perhaps, give them the discretion with some parameters and guidelines so that it is not abused. But trust our educators with that discretion because they will consider the merits of each appeal individually. We have come to accept that every school is a good school. Perhaps, we should also recognise that every child is a good child, albeit in different ways and at different paces, and that having a simpler system is not necessarily doing justice to recognising the individual intrinsic worth of each child. Affiliation Priority in Secondary School”
“If a student gets a DSA place based on, say, athletics, first, and subsequently discovers his talent in something else, can that student be allowed to pursue that something else at the expense of athletics? A DSA place is for four to six years. We have to remember that a child at 11 or 12 will be very different from one who is 16 or 17, and our system must be flexible enough to take that into account. Another unintended consequence of a very robust DSA system is that it leaves very little room for a student to try out new sport or experience a new art form in school. One has to be already very good at the CCA to even join it. It is either you are very good at it, get a DSA place or do not join the CCA. There is no more fun in CCA. So, can the Minister please look into this when reviewing the system? Cut-off Points for School Admission Second, on cut-off points. I heard my colleagues take this point up earlier so I will be very short. The short answer the Ministry previously gave was that it is better to have a simpler system. I can understand the merits of having a simpler system as it is easier to administer. But we are dealing with the educational pathways of our students and a simpler system runs counter to the belief that each child is special and different. It also cuts across the MOE's own policy of making education much more than just about numbers and grades and to look at the holistic worth of each and every individual. It sends the message that whatever may be the efforts to value holistic education, at the end of the day, only academic merit matters. Can the Minister, therefore, review this policy?”
“Yes, Sir. Sir, admission to the school of choice is amongst the most challenging of issues facing parents in Singapore. Since 2004, the DSA system has become part of that admission ecosystem. It is, therefore, no surprise that 2016 saw a record number of applications by PSLE students for DSA into a school of their choice. MOE has previously announced that it is relooking the DSA criteria. This, indeed, is timely because there are several areas which, in my view, need an urgent review. First, I really cannot understand the meaning of DSA Academic. According to the MOE website, the purpose of DSA is to give students, and I quote, "an opportunity to demonstrate a more diverse range of achievements and talents in seeking admission to secondary schools". DSA Academic, however, does absolutely nothing to enhance that diversity because the PSLE is itself based entirely on academic merit. Why then is there a need to have this parallel admission system based on academic merit? Can this be dispensed with? The parallel system can also be open to abuse, such as offering students DSA Academic on waitlist. Why is there a need for a waitlist? And when does the waitlist become closed? And if a waitlist's student is confirmed only after the PSLE results are released, does that not mean that one can game the system? In such a case, it would then become very important to understand what the criteria for the waitlist are, but that is never published. Second, can the Minister also review the requirement that a student who gains admission into a school in DSA Sport or Performing Arts is required to stick to that chosen field for the next four to six years and not replace it with any other co-curricular activities (CCAs)? Like anything in life, our CCA system cannot be rigid and unbending.”
“The Latin American countries remain a very important emerging market which holds significant economic potential for Singapore. This is borne out by the fact that despite a slowdown in the global economy, Singapore's trade with the Latin American and Caribbean countries reached $21.1 billion in 2015. This region is also home to several major and promising economies, such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, all of whom are in the G20, along with the Pacific Alliance, a regional trade bloc comprising Chile, Colombia, Peru and Mexico. The region's importance to Singapore was recently underscored by President Tony Tan's state visit to Mexico in June 2016 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Singapore and Mexico. This was also the first visit by President Tan to the Latin American region. What further steps, therefore, is the Ministry taking to broaden and deepen our commitment to these bilateral ties, to expand political, economic, educational, cultural and also people-to-people links? Finally, beyond these issues of economic ties and engagements, what other non-economic areas, such as development of arts and culture, science and technology, could be considered by the Ministry? Engagement with the Middle East”
“It says, "The Senate shall be established and elected by people." That is what it says here, in the Member's own document. You have proposed a Senate of eight persons. Unless I heard you wrongly. Unless you are suggesting that they will all be elected as a slate, which has its own different views. Otherwise, I think we can see from the Member's own document what Option B says.”
“The Member had suggested a referendum, which I have responded to, and she has also suggested that for each member of the Senate, they will have a separate election. And that is why I said that we will be over electioneering.”
“I will address the last point first. I think Ms Lim may have misheard. There is no suggestion that any member of the CPA will do the bidding, as she puts it, of the President. Instead, I am responding to her suggestion that because there is an enhanced and strengthened CPA that therefore, the Elected President's powers and roles are effectively neutered. That is not the case. On her question of the 1988 elections and the question of whether or not this Elected President has been settled. The point I am making, simply, is that: in this debate, in this Bill, the question of whether the Elected President should or should not be there is not the issue. The issue today is whether or not the enhancements to the powers, the revision to the criteria, as well as the hiatus-triggered mechanism should be implemented and put into the Constitution. That is the question. To that extent, that is why I said that it is not on the table as to whether or not you should now, today, have a referendum to decide on whether or not to continue with the office of the Elected President through your referendum. It may well come about another day. I am not ruling it out, but that is not for today. Page: 56 On the Member's point on the referendum, the last point, the point I made was simply that if we had a referendum each time to elect all of her eight, 10 or 12 Senate members, then we would effectively spend our time electioneering, as well as spending our time politicising and over-politicising issues. I think we need to get on with the issue of governance and bringing Singapore forward.”
“I would also add that the beauty of this mechanism is that it would entirely recede into insignificance and into the background if candidates from the minority groups are regularly elected Page: 55 into office. And that means that we can keep up with our work-in-progress. And when the day comes when we have truly arrived at the objective of a race-blind state, then the mechanism which will help in the background will eventually fade into oblivion. Madam, with that, I support the Bill.”
“The Prime Minister mentioned at the conference in October last year that we made a lot of progress for the last 50 years, but all of these stemmed from "an act of will, which we have sustained over many decades, but it is still work-in-progress". And that is where I think our hiatus-triggered mechanism fits in. It is part of this work-in-progress towards a truly race-blind and multiracial society. And I think Singaporeans are supportive of such policies. Madam, some comparison has been raised between the system that the Commission has proposed and that of what is done in France, Canada and Switzerland as well. All I would say, Mdm Speaker, is that different countries have different motivations, and this just shows us how each country, each set of different ideals has to forge its own path and decide what is best and what suits its local environment. I take a leaf out of what the Prime Minister said earlier about how the British drafted us a very good Constitution, but if it does not work for us, it does not work for us. So, the situation we find ourselves in is really sui generis, unique. As the Constitutional Commission noted, "The office of the Elected President is unique. It is not an institution derived from one which exists in any other jurisdiction. Rather, it is an entirely indigenous creation, designed to address the particular imperatives and vulnerabilities in our system of governance against the backdrop of our own historical context." Consistent with our own unique history and that of the Elected President, the Bill now proposes a unique hiatus-triggered mechanism, which I think, after much consideration, does fit into our own historical, social and racial context.”
“Looking back at our past, it is clear that where we are here today, 51 years from 1965, has been achieved by design and not by chance. The racial integration and cohesion which we enjoy including in our HDB estates, are precisely evidence of that. The results of the CNA-Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey which Deputy Prime Minister Teo outlined yesterday, I think amply bear that out. And one other number jumped out at me which I would like to share with this House. There was the feedback unt Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) survey and it raised this question: whether there should be a reserved election for minority candidates if a minority member had not been elected President for five terms and so on. And the respondents were grouped by race. And the numbers, I think, tell us a story. Amongst the Chinese respondents, 28% said they would support such a move. But amongst the Malay and Indian respondents, at least 40% said they would support the move. So, there is a differential. Why? Because those two races are in the minority. And so, we may say that our ideal is to live in a racially colour-blind harmonious society, but all of that takes effort. The racial harmony that we enjoy today, in a world where racial fault lines are at their most divisive, is really the product of the carefully conceived and consistently applied policy of deliberate integration. It is the product of various policies which have become almost second nature to us today, for example, reciting the words every day at the school pledge "regardless of race, language or religion". They mean something. We see our signs, our Mass Rapid Transit announcements in four different languages, and they are taken for granted.”
“One example is the Ethnic Integration Policy, first devised, I think, in 1989 by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), to promote racial integration and harmony in our HDB estates. That policy was formulated as there were concerns that ethnic or racial enclaves were forming around Singapore. The policy was thus meant to facilitate Singaporeans mixing freely with one another, with other races, in our HDB estates. And as a result, we have a variety of people from different races living in the same estate. We have hawker centres catering to persons of different races. So, we have a wide array of different food types. Children grow up and play with friends from different cultures in the void decks. Neighbours invite one another for meals on festive occasions – Chinese for Deepavali, the Indians for Hari Raya and so on. When we look back at it, I believe that such cohesion would not have been possible without this Ethnic Integration Policy, a policy that was active, deliberate and very consciously initiated and practised. The concern, however, was that when you institutionalise minority representation in the office of the President, then you are choosing based on race and not on merit. I think we have heard the Prime Minister respond to that by saying that merit actually comes first. So, you might have a reserved election but the candidate who stands and steps forward must first pass the eligibility criteria. Mdm Speaker, the mechanism that has been proposed and which the Bill proposes for adoption in the Constitution can, in fact, be a very valuable means of helping us to achieve Page: 54 multiracialism and racial harmony. But I see it as a means and not as an end.”
“If we look at the percentage of companies which would meet the shareholder equity criterion today, that is roughly similar to the number in 1993 – 0.23%. Further, because the absolute numbers have grown larger, 0.23% today will represent, in absolute terms, a bigger number of persons who would qualify. So, the fear that this criterion is being revised to close off an uncooperative Elected President really is unfounded. Mdm Speaker, I want to move on to this question of the hiatus-triggered mechanism. And I am heartened to have heard the Prime Minister outline the reasons and the rationale behind that, and I would just like to add my views on this. I think it is important that the Elected President plays that symbolic role. It is as important as the custodial role and function that he performs. The Bill proposes that this balance be achieved by having a reserved election for a community that has not held the office for five or more consecutive terms. And this stems from the Commission's recommendation. The rationale behind it was that multiracialism and racial harmony are crucial in Singapore, and I quote, "An important element of multiracialism, in particular, racial minorities, are never represented in the office of the President." But to be honest, when the Prime Minister first raised it in January, I was a little sceptical and somewhat reserved about this proposal. And the reason for that was because, in Singapore, we have always had a system that is strongly based on the bedrock of meritocracy. It is not about which race you come from. It is not about the creed that you subscribe to but whether or not you are up to the job. And that has always been our ethos and belief. We have had many other policies in Singapore that revolve around racial mix.”
“So, Mdm Speaker, we come back now to what I think are the key issues of this Bill, which is, having put the office of the Elected President in place for the past 25 years, we are now looking at enhancements to the powers and roles of the CPA. When Emeritus Senior Minister Goh explained in 1998 to this House the background to the White Paper at that time, he said the financial Reserves and integrity of our Public Service would be the two key assets that we cannot afford to be eroded. The amendments that are being proposed today about enhancing and fortifying the key functions which the Elected President currently performs remain, in my view, as crucial today as when the Elected President was first introduced 25 years ago. So, if we accept that fiscal Reserves and public infrastructure are worth safeguarding, then really, inevitably, the question has to be what qualifications should the Elected President have in order to best discharge that responsibility? In that context, having a qualifying criterion that is at least 25 years old based on being a CEO of a company that has a paid-up capital of at least $100 million, that criterion really needs to be updated. Page: 53 If we look at the numbers proffered by the Commission, in 1993, only 0.2% of Singapore incorporated companies met the $100 million paid-up capital requirement. Today, however, the smallest of the top 0.2%, the same percentage of Singapore incorporated companies, we have a paid-up capital of approximately $431 million or more than four times what the threshold was. So, those numbers alone tell us why, how urgent it is to update those criteria. The suggestion that the updating of the criteria is to foreshadow or foreclose some candidates, I think is also not tenable.”
“They had every opportunity of having their views considered and taken into account by the Commission, put into the Commission report tabled in the White Paper, and for this House to consider. They chose not to do so. Instead, they turned up with a proposed referendum which seeks, in my view, to enhance the unnecessary politicising of matters and issues in Singapore. In relation to Ms Sylvia Lim's contention on the CPA, the suggestion was because there is now a CPA that has been enhanced, and the enhancement of the CPA was one of the suggestions I had myself mooted in January when I spoke about the Elected President when Parliament opened. I am heartened to note that the Commission has taken on board at least that suggestion, not necessarily by me, but perhaps from other sources as well. But it strengthens the CPA and it gives a greater resource to the Elected President. The Elected President has three nominees onto the CPA, plus the ability to nominate the Chairman who has a casting vote. So, in any given issue that is put before the CPA, the President just needs to persuade one other Member of the CPA, together with a casting vote, before the CPA would go along with the President's decision. That is not the mechanism that overrides the President's powers or that curtails the President's powers. In fact, the Commission specifically considered this point and took the position that, in fact, if that happens, if the Chairman had to use his casting vote, then the Parliamentary override should be a higher supermajority of three-quarters, and that was not accepted.”
“The Elected Presidency, with its custodial veto powers, in fact, limits the Government's ability to do as it wishes with the country's key assets and resources, namely, our financial Reserves and our Public Service infrastructure. This is quite possibly one of few, if any, governments in the world proposing an elected counter-balance to check its own power to ensure that it is the system and not any individual or any government of the day that remains strong. And in seeking to achieve that, the qualifying criteria have to be set to ensure that any candidate has to possess the right attributes and experience to see through these functions. Page: 52 So, far from being elitist, in fact, we should make no apology for wanting the bar to be set higher to ensure that everyone aspiring to that position will be well-qualified. And really, why should we accept any less when the issues at stake are our Reserves, which represent our future and our children's future? Ms Sylvia Lim has also suggested that this has been rushed through, the process has been taken very quickly. It has been close to 10 to 11 months since the Prime Minister first raised this question in this House at the start of Parliament in January. The Commission was set up. A hundred and seven submissions were invited and received, including from the WP. There were several months of public hearings, very publicly reported in the papers. Subsequently, Ministers, Cabinet Ministers – we heard from the Prime Minister earlier – went out to conduct ground sensing, explain the Bill and do surveys. The WP had the opportunity to present their submissions and make themselves heard by the Commission. They were invited to do so but they declined. Why?”
“Mr Pritam Singh told us a story about how President SR Nathan was always there to look out for everyone and encouraged him without raising doubt or concern about serving Singapore in a different colour, different course or different capacity. So, Mdm Speaker, it is very easy for issues in this debate to be clouded and coloured by emotive propositions. For example, the office of the Elected President has been accused of being a PAP legacy, capable of only being drawn from an elitist group of senior civil servants. Never mind that these senior civil servants operate in a Westminster form of government who are loyal to the government of the day but should be, and are, impartial to political affiliation. Or that all these amendments are apparently being proposed to debar some inconvenient candidates who might turn out to be uncooperative Elected Presidents. And it is said that the reason why the eligibility criteria have been revised upwards is precisely to make it more elitist. There is also the question of the minority racial representation. When one talks about racial representation, it can become quite emotive. But that would be the wrong approach to take when we look at this Bill. The present amendments which this House has been asked to consider are not about establishing a PAP legacy. It is not about entrenching its powers and it is certainly not about stopping one or more individuals from coming forward if they are qualified. In truth, the fundamental basis behind the concept of the Elected President is quite the contrary and the details in this Bill are quite the contrary.”
“Mdm Speaker, just a short while ago, the hon Member for Aljunied Ms Sylvia Lim suggested in this House that we conduct a referendum in place of what is on the table today. There are three points in response I would like to make. The first is that this would create a political contest that would be polarising, divisive, time-consuming and energy-sapping, repeatedly for eight members of the proposed Senate. Would this not be far more political and politicising Page: 51 than the current model that is on the table? Second, it may be in the WP's interest to continually politicise issues and continually have a platform to allow themselves to politicise issues that affect Singaporeans and Singapore in general. But that is not the mandate of this House. That is not the purpose of having the second key and the custodian to the Reserves and the guardian of the Public Service infrastructure in Singapore. Third, in any case, the issue of whether or not we should have an Elected President was in fact settled 25 years ago. It was settled 25 years ago when two White Papers were put to this House in 1988 and again in 1991 and, eventually, passed in this House. And it was one of the platforms on which the 1988 GEs were run and Singaporeans voted on it. So, the only issue today that remains is whether the criteria should be updated in the manner in which this Bill has proposed, and whether or not there should be additional safeguards in connection with minor racial representation. And I would add, Mdm Speaker, that just not long ago, two months ago, in paying tribute to our ex-President SR Nathan, Ms Sylvia Lim had said that, in fact, President SR Nathan made great efforts to reach out, including to her.”
“First, because of what has been debated in this House and the seriousness of the matter, could the Minister give some further examples of trial by media and explain the damage which could be caused to ordinary citizens, whether to the accused or otherwise, and how the laws might then apply? Second, in particular, clause 2(1) which defines "publish" to be dissemination or communication to the "public at large, or to a member of the public". Could the Minister clarify what does it mean to publish something "to the public at large or a member of the public", and how would this be distinguished from "private" communications? That is one of the concerns articulated, especially by the Member Ms Kuik earlier, and I think that is a valid point. If a group of friends sitting around in a coffee shop decides to discuss the ongoing criminal trial amongst one another, would that be caught by public communication? I should hope not. With that, I support the Bill, Madam.”
“It is not cut from the same cloth, and so, it is not one size fits all, and the range simply gives our judges the discretion to apply them in the context of the relevant case. Notably, and I would like to emphasise too, that the power of punishment applies across the board to all types of contempt, including cases of breach of protection orders for harassment, family violence, as Members have heard from our colleagues earlier, those which relate to the division of assets and for maintenance in the care of children. This will, indeed, ensure that the most vulnerable amongst us will have proper recourse in the event of non-compliance. And before I leave the point on punishment, quite a number of Members have relied on the disparity in what happened and was meted out in Alan Shadrake being regarded by the Courts as one of the most serious cases of contempt. But what my colleagues may have omitted to take note of is the fact that the Court of Appeal, in that case, actually expressly disagreed with the punishment that was offered. It, in fact, said that this was an entirely "undeserved discount" and which will and should not be taken as a precedent. The only reason or one of the reasons why the Court of Appeal did not change the sentence in that case was because the Prosecution did not appeal. So, it felt that this was what it would be bound by as a punishment given by the High Court. So, it is not tenable to use Alan Shadrake and the example in the Alan Shadrake case to say that we have moved the benchmark and moved the goalpost significantly. Finally, two points of clarification which I would like the Minister to consider.”
“Clause 12 of the Bill thus states that where the power to punish for contempt is exercised by the High Court or the Court of Appeal, then a person who commits such contempt shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or with punishment not exceeding three years, or both. It is important to remember that what the Bill sets out to achieve is to set a maximum punishment permissible by the Courts. This is the case in almost all of our penal statutes; it sets a maximum ceiling but this does not mean, as some speakers in this House seem to suggest, that the maximum will then become the benchmark in all cases. Our Courts currently have, and under the Bill will continue to have, the discretion to mete out the sentence to fit the crime, to be appropriate, to be proportionate and to consider the relevant facts in each case of offensive conduct. Our judges are well-equipped and experienced in this exercise as there are many offences in the Penal Code and others for which there are maximum sentences and which require our judges to exercise their discretion in sentencing every day. There is, in fact, a whole body of law just on how that discretion ought to be exercised. It is important for the range of punishments to be set out clearly, as some of my colleagues have acknowledged, and for our Courts to then have the discretion to decide within that range. In some cases, as our Court of Appeal recently did, a contemnor was punished with eight months' imprisonment. In the UK, recently, the punishment ranges from eight to 21 months. But really, one cannot apply one case and say that that becomes the standard for another.”
“And in order to get such leave, it will need to satisfy the Court that the acts, in fact, constitute prima facie contempt, and the Court will be guided by the principles set out in this very same Bill, before the order would be granted. And the burden is on the AG to make an application to obtain ex parte, give full and frank disclosure, disclose all material facts to the Court, which also acts as a safeguard in scrutinising any such application. Finally, I now turn to the issue of the proposed punishment for contempt. As a starting point, if we accept that our society needs the contempt rules, and that these rules are laudable, then such rules must be capable of enforcement. Again, the power of our Courts to administer punishment for contempt is also not new. This power is already in our current Supreme Court of Judicature Act and our State Courts Act. Further, as in the case of Alan Shadrake which has been mentioned earlier provides, our law already allows a sentence of both imprisonment and a fine as punishment for contempt. And recently, as the Minister mentioned, there has already been a case where a Court has meted out a sentence of up to eight months' imprisonment for failure to comply with a Court order. What this Bill does, however, is to prescribe an upper limit on the length of imprisonment and the quantum of the fine. While the State Courts Act prescribes an upper limit for the District and Magistrates Courts, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act does not currently prescribe an upper limit. So, this Bill directly addresses this ambiguity by setting out the maximum punishment that can be meted for the offence.”
“The Bill simply makes the process clearer and introduces express safeguards by prescribing the legal test which the AG must satisfy when he goes to Court to seek a non-publication order. In this case, I believe the issue is one of balance. On the one hand, we cannot shut out legitimate public discourse, which I agree is the hallmark of an engaged, active citizenry which we want in Singapore. But we also cannot allow a small minority of persons, who may have an agenda to insult, vilify, sensationalise, publish with callous abandon, especially with the Internet being what it is. Publication, re-posting and sharing occur instantly and, in a few hours, can become viral. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to completely remove postings, and that is precisely what the UK Law Commission had in mind. And so, if we are to have any meaning behind our contempt rules, especially as regards the commission of contempt by publication, there has to be some power to stop the publication at source. If we agree that acts of contempt are harmful to the public interest, then the AG ought to be empowered to take swift and decisive action to prevent or stop the publication of such material in appropriate cases. I accept that there could well be occasions where a Court might subsequently decide that the publication does not actually amount to contempt and sets aside the take-down order. But this is not a case of absolutes, it is a case about striking the right balance, having regard to how quickly a publication can go viral, and it is in this context alone that clause 13 gives the power to the AG in the form that it does. It also bears noting that this power is not unfettered, and the AG will require the leave of Court.”
“It undermines the presumption of innocence, it could taint or discourage witnesses from coming forward and affect the evidence they give in Court, and puts the judge under unnecessary public pressure. And this can either be real or perceived. What is wrong with coming down strongly in this case in favour of a fair trial? Let me quote something from the UK Law Commission 2012 when they were studying the effect of the Internet on the laws of contempt: "The volume of material that can now be stored, the ease with which it can be communicated and redistributed, the size of the audience that can be reached, and the global accessibility of information bring many new challenges, including for the law of contempt. While prejudicial information may historically have faded with the newspaper print, as well as from our collective memory, as data, it is now processed, archived and is retrievable for very much longer periods of time". So, clause 13 of the Bill, in my view, seeks to address the fresh challenges which the new media poses, whilst at the same time, maintaining the constitutional balance between freedom of speech and the necessary limitations to such freedoms to protect against contempt of Court. The clause allows the AG to direct a publisher of any matter to refrain from or cease publishing that matter, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, and if he has the leave of the High Court. This has been described as a "new power". But, even under the current law, it is already open to the AG to obtain a Court order, in appropriate cases, to restrain publication of statements which constitute contempt, including on an ex parte basis, and even before publication.”
“There are two limbs to it: first, it has to be an act which risks prejudicing legal proceedings and – this is conjunctive – a publication which tends to prejudice a fair trial of a case. The real mischief which the existing law on sub judice statements, as codified in the new Bill, seeks to guard against is the prospect of "trial by media" and, as the Minister outlined earlier, the prevention of whipping up of sentiment against or for a particular outcome that a trial is meant to decide on. In the course of my own practice of the law, I have noticed the marked proliferation – as I am sure all of you have – of social media and its effects on, in this case, the administration of justice, in particular, the increasing risk of trial by media. This is where an individual who is being tried in our Courts is accused, vilified and disparaged in the media or on online platforms which are accessible to many. Such behaviour is prevalent in other jurisdictions, especially where there are tabloid newspapers. In relation to what has transpired in some overseas jurisdictions, I do not think we need to look beyond some of the highly publicised cases. The Minister mentioned Amanda Knox's case. Further ago, we had Michael Jackson's case, and more recently, we had Oscar Pistorius' case, both of which received significant public media attention which, to some extent, relegated and completely overshadowed the actual Court proceedings from start to finish. There is no shortage of local examples as well, as some of my colleagues have earlier outlined. The effects of trial by media on the conduct of a fair trial in our Courts and the effect on an individual's life, and the prospects of that individual's chances and merits at a fair trial cannot be underestimated.”
“He went on to say, and I quote: "Those who present difficult arguments to the Court with all due vigour but also with all due respect and etiquette that we expect of our officers, have nothing to fear". So, when the hon Member Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan said the Courts are the final arbiter, this is their view. Our highest Court has made it clear that fierce and vigorous criticism of Court decisions, even those of its own Court of Appeal decisions, they are permitted. And there are clear rules by which this can be done. This happens, in fact, frequently, and our existing common law rules on contempt of Court already permit all kinds of criticism to be levelled at the decisions of the Court. Likewise, under the new Bill, this is no different, and I would ask the Minister simply to confirm this, to quell the disquiet that seems to have been going around this Chamber about what additional measures or additional hurdles this new Bill has put forward. I now turn to the issue of interference with Court proceedings, whether by publication or by intimidation. The Petition seems to say that because of this that legitimate expression and discussion on public interest will be curtailed. Madam, those fears are, in my view, completely unwarranted. In fact, I would venture to suggest that such statements are alarmist and reveal a fundamental misunderstanding as to what this Bill and the law are all about. Let me focus on sub judice. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial – the accused, the victim, their families and the potential witnesses. This is the law today and this is what the Bill has encapsulated. The test is found in clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill and has been frequently discussed.”
“Second, a person will be liable for contempt for statements which scandalise the Court, or which undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. And third, a person will be liable for contempt for sub judice statements. This means where a person makes a statement which may interfere with or affect a fair trial or which amounts to public prejudgment of a case. The Petition, in fact, regards all of these objectives as "laudable" and I think that must be correct. Under our current law, lawyers, academics, laypersons are all free to criticise the outcomes of civil and criminal Court proceedings and decisions: to argue that a judge's reasoning was wrong, to say that the Court has misunderstood or ignored the evidence or placed the wrong weight on evidence, to argue that the Court's sentence in a criminal case was too harsh or too lenient in the circumstances. None of these would amount to scandalising, whether under the existing law or in the current Bill. In fact, in a recent decision by the Court of Appeal, our highest Court, the Court was asked to consider an argument that the Court of Appeal had itself acted improperly in its own previous decision. I was the counsel in this case and the question which arose was whether there might be reservations in mounting a strong challenge against a decision of the Court of Appeal on the ground that the Court of Appeal has itself acted in breach of fair hearing rules. Those are very serious allegations. In considering such an argument, the learned Chief Justice observed that the Court would, in fact, expect "nothing less" than such a case be pursued with the "utmost force".”
“Madam, the law relating to contempt of Court is of fundamental importance to our legal system and the administration of justice in Singapore. I think that much almost every speaker today agrees on. It is a means by which our Courts can assure that its authority is not undermined and act on to prevent those who do so. As Lord Denning, a very famous British law lord, once said, "The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it, strike at the very foundation of society." And that is why, when the Petition is brought, which suggest that this Bill stifles active and public discourse, we should sit up and look at it, because these are, indeed, very serious suggestions. So, let me consider these concerns, outlined in the Petition, in the context of three aspects of the Bill: first, whether the Bill aims to stifle active and responsible discussion; second, the power given to the AG to issue a non-publication direction; and third, the proposed punishments which have been seen or described in the Petition as being out of step with benchmarks. Let me deal with the first point. It would be useful, first, to understand what is the state of law today. What does it allow? What does it not allow? And the Bill sets this out very clearly with added explanations, illustrations and examples as to what amounts to contempt. These categories of conduct are no different from the conduct which amounts to contempt in common law as it stands today. There are three aspects to it and I will cover them very briefly. First, a person will be liable for contempt if he or she disobeys the orders of the Court. This is very straightforward, requires no elaboration and can really brook no dissent. Court orders have to be complied with.”
“Additionally, these factors need to take into account needs-based wants, such as the existence of permanent and also severe illnesses, which are factors that are, more often than not, present among our elderly. Third, have a deeper inquiry into income status and also consider special cases where, despite having a good annual or per capita income, the family unit could be facing significant financial strains. Fourth, consider the annual income over a longer span of time, say, three to five years, rather than just the preceding year. Fifth, incorporate other needs-based eligibility factors. For example, where members of the family could be unemployed due to temporary sickness, disability, or where a family is headed by a lone parent of young children. In fact, some of these factors that I have mentioned have been borrowed from some of the factors that I have seen used by the UK government, in relation to how they qualify their citizens for support. So, with that, I urge this House and the Minister to consider reviewing the means so that the means tested criteria are fairer and they allow for a bigger span and better allocation of our resources so that our Budgets can be maximised and our resources directly applied specifically to those who need them more. Reduce Compliance Burden”
“It does not matter to the means tester whether the individual owns the property or not, whether he or she is renting or not, or could even be only temporarily living there on the goodwill of a friend or a family member. The moment there is a private residential address, the means test criteria look immediately at the AV, regardless. But is this right? Because these factors, such as whether they actually own it or are just living there temporarily while they find their own feet and gain financial independence, do matter, and they might tell us a very different story of the financial sufficiency of the individual concerned. Finally, whilst income per capita is a useful gauge of a family's financial status, it fails to take into account other tiers of factors, such as factors which may significantly affect a family's cost of living, for example, dependants who are elderly, suffer from serious illnesses which need medical care or who have special needs in their families. I, therefore, believe, Madam, that we need to look at refining the criteria for some of our social transfer schemes. Whilst current measures do provide a decent gauge of a household's or individuals' financial needs, I think more granulation needs to be undertaken. Could the Minister consider a revision of the means testing criteria to incorporate a matrix of factors with the following in mind? First, consider home ownership rather than just home residency. Second, go beyond mere household type, in particular, for the Silver Support Scheme. It has already been mentioned in this House that the current criteria need to be revised because indicators, such as household type alone, are not reflective of income and wealth, and I agree.”
“The MediSave Top-Up scheme also looks at the home AV. PSEA, which is the entitlement for all post-secondary school education students, likewise, does the same, as does the CDAC top-up. I would suggest, Mdm Chair, that the factors which go into the means testing criteria be reviewed. For instance, the emphasis on AV is perhaps something of a misnomer in the context of means testing. As a result of this, a number of people who need assistance could well fall through the cracks. And let me elaborate a little on this point. There are families who live in private estates, but who may have little or no regular income to get by on. Many of them are likely to be elderly; they have inherited their homes or acquired it many years ago and have lived in this home all their lives. They may live in a property which has good AV, but they are cash poor. But we tell them that because of their home AV, they will fail to qualify for many of the social schemes which they might need. To this group of people, AV is indeed something of a misnomer. It is really no answer to tell these people that they should sell their home, their property, relocate and live off the remaining proceeds of the sale. We would only be dislocating many of them from their homes; the environment they have grown comfortable with and this would directly, in my view, undermine efforts at fostering the social fabric within our communities we have strived so hard to build. Another quibble I have with the present system is that the means test merely uses the home address on the National Registration Identity Card (NRIC).”
“Mdm Chair, income redistribution and social transfers have played an increasing role in our fiscal system for some years now. This year has not been any different. We are a country with limited resources, and we cannot afford to be like some of the countries in the western world which spend a large proportion of their national budgets and gross domestic product (GDP) on welfare schemes. It is, therefore, necessary for us to strike a right balance in how we allocate our resources for these schemes that we put in place. There are a few basic issues here. 11.45 am First is the philosophy that the less privileged should receive more. There cannot be any real disagreement there. The second issue, however, is much harder – how do we determine who the less privileged are, and should there be a scale to distinguish them and, hence, how much assistance they receive? This issue undergirds the importance of means testing, which is the basis on which our resources for transfers are allocated. Over the years, Singapore has enacted a wide range of welfare schemes that seek to benefit many low-income families and they are targeted at the vulnerable groups. These include system schemes such as Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), ComCare, the Silver Support Scheme, the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) for education bursaries, and so on. Currently, a majority of these schemes assess eligibility based on three broad key factors and these are: household income, per capita income and home annual value (AV). For example, in healthcare, the MediShield Life scheme, which provides medical coverage for all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, tiers its premium subsidies solely based on home AV and monthly household income. CHAS adopts the same criteria.”
“I think the fact of the matter is that whenever we choose to run an event, we hold a show, we all get the necessary permission, even for myself.”
“I said you can make what you will of it yourself. If you choose to be proactive on the ground, you can be present well beyond what the current NCMPs might well be doing. But the fact of the matter is, nothing in the scheme today precludes the NCMP from being visible, present and active on the ground.”