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 5 of 45.
“Sir, I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his support for the proposed scheme. And indeed, it is true. The irony is that some debtors consult with these firms only to find that they end up in a bigger hole, a larger debt, as a consequence of trying to find a solution to their debt. So, we are very mindful of this and we will take steps to look at how we can have levers to clamp down on such practices by these firms. Indeed, it is also true, Sir, as Mr Zhulkarnain points out, that public awareness is key, to paraphrase him. We will step up significantly on steps to raise awareness and we will do this in a few ways. First, we will put information on MinLaw's website. We will enhance it, to make it informative and user friendly. Second, we intend to also publish a guide to help debtors along the journey of submitting bankruptcy applications, and teach them and guide them on what steps to take, to try to turn them away from having to rely on such debt consultancy firms to get assistance for the paperwork. So, we will simplify as much as we can, as well as publish step-by-step guidelines, so that they can avoid going to these firms. Finally, we will also look at measures to proactively reach out to debtors, for example, imposing mandatory credit counselling as a prerequisite for filing bankruptcy application, so that we get to them first, try and educate them, raise awareness on the process, so that we can deter them as much as we can from turning to the debt consultancy firms.”
“Newsletters and other publications serve to communicate information to and raise awareness for our residents. These usually include information on national initiatives as well as local programs. Publications also help facilitate residents' feedback to and communication with their local grassroots organisations and volunteers. The types and formats of such publications, whether in physical form or digital, as well as the nature of their content and form of distribution, would depend on various factors, such as the specific purpose of the publication, taking into account the type of information and the profile of the local community to whom the publication is directed. Each Grassroots Organisation (GRO) or Community Development Council (CDC) will decide on the publications it wishes to make, taking into account the above. We do not track each newsletter that is published. Residents can consult with their respective local GROs, CDCs or grassroots leaders on these publications.”
“The CDC Vouchers Donation initiative is part of the Community Development Council's (CDC's) efforts to build caring and inclusive communities. It was first announced in December 2022 as part of CDC Vouchers Scheme 2021 and 2022. The initiative provided Singaporean households the avenue to donate their unused CDC vouchers to participating Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs). These participating IPCs support diverse causes, such as animal welfare, arts and heritage, children and youth, the environment, migrant community, persons with disability and more. Across the first three tranches of the CDC Vouchers Scheme, close to $2 million was donated by Singaporean households to more than 200 IPCs. The IPCs that received the most donations were from the following causes: animal welfare, children/families/youth, healthcare and persons with disabilities. These contributions will make a tangible and positive difference to the various causes and beneficiaries.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth Eric Chua has addressed Oral Parliamentary Question Nos 2 and 3 in Parliament yesterday. Mr Gerald Giam may wish to refer to the response then. [Please refer to "Government Spending on 2025 World Aquatics Championships Versus Benefits and Sponsorships Generated", Official Report, 27 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 154, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“At the Parliamentary Sittings on 14 and 16 October 2024, the Government had explained why it would not be in the public interest for the proposed sale of a majority stake in Income Insurance Limited (Income) to Allianz Europe B.V. (Allianz) to proceed and why the Government had decided to amend the Insurance Act to stop the deal. Minister Chee Hong Tat and I also addressed a wide range of questions from Members during those Sittings. [Please refer to "Pre-conditional Voluntary General Offer by Allianz for Income Insurance", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Ministerial Statements section; and "Insurance (Amendment) Bill", Official Report, 16 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 144, Second Reading Bills section.] Allianz and Income are both corporate entities and not subject to the Co‑operative Societies Act. This was why the Government intervened to stop the deal by way of amendments to the Insurance Act, and no further action within the purview of the Co-operative Societies Act is required. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is considering future amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act to enable the Government to have stronger levers over co-operative societies that may wish to be corporatised. When ready, MCCY will table the proposed amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act in Parliament for discussion and approval.”
“Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police. For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim. For example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents. The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.”
“Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants. Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC Vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets. Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons. For example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address. Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any community centre or club. If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) showing their current registered address, the CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents showing their name and current address, e.g. utilities bill, property tax, to the nearest community centre or club to apply for their vouchers. Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore.”
“Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police. For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim. For example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents. The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.”
“Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants. Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC Vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets. Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons. For example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address. Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any community centre or club. If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) showing their current registered address, the CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents showing their name and current address, for example, utilities bill, property tax, to the nearest community centre or club to apply for their vouchers. Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore.”
“Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out, and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police. For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million, Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim, for example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents. The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.”
“Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants. Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets. Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons, for example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address, or their registered address is not a residential address. Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any Community Centre or Club. If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) (showing their current registered address), CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents (showing their name and current address), for example, utilities bill, property tax to the nearest Community Centre or Club to apply for their vouchers. Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore.”
“Singaporean households who come across previous owner or occupants who did not update their address with the authorities after they have moved out and have made false claims of the CDC Vouchers, may report the incident to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Police. For CDC Vouchers Scheme 2024, as of 31 December 2024, 97%, or about 1.3 million Singaporean households had claimed their CDC Vouchers 2024 (January) and (June), which is the highest claim figures since the launch of the digital scheme in 2021. There remains a small group of households that did not claim. For example, households whose residents are living overseas. The CDCs continue to work on ensuring all eligible Singaporean households can claim and spend their vouchers by reaching out especially to digitally less-savvy residents. The Government remains committed to ensuring that the CDC Vouchers Scheme best serves Singaporean households and local businesses. We will continue to monitor its implementation and review where needed to ensure its effectiveness.”
“Since January 2023, the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers have been split equally between the hawkers and heartland merchant category and the supermarket category. This strikes a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants. Across the 2023 and 2024 tranches of CDC Vouchers, more than $1.3 billion worth of CDC Vouchers have been spent. Of this, about 49.6% were spent at heartland merchants and 50.4% were spent at supermarkets. Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of CDC Vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC Vouchers for a variety of reasons. For example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address. Singaporean households living in co-tenanted premises are not disadvantaged as long as they can provide proof of their separate households. In such cases, the household that has yet to claim their vouchers may make an appeal at any community centre or club. If Singaporean households experience difficulty in claiming their CDC Vouchers digitally, they can bring along their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) showing their current registered address, the CDC Vouchers Scheme notification letter and relevant official documents showing their name and current address, for example, utilities bill, property tax, to the nearest community centre or club to apply for their vouchers. Under the Regulation 11A of the National Registration Act, all NRIC holders need to report a change of address within 28 days of moving into a new residence, whether the residence is located in or outside of Singapore.”
“Disclosure of the identities and citizenship of purchasers and ultimate beneficial owners are required to be made to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for all landed residential property transactions. This is to ensure compliance with the Residential Property Act 1976. This is regardless of whether the purchase is made by an individual or through a vehicle, such as a trust or entity. Such disclosures are generally not required by the SLA for non-landed properties, such as condominium and apartment units. This information on ultimate beneficial ownership is not made public by SLA. This is not required in the conveyancing process for property transactions. The purchase of assets by companies, trusts and other vehicles is a well-known process and long recognised by law. As regards the question on who potential buyers or their lawyers can deal with, under the Land Titles Act 1993, potential buyers or their lawyers can deal with the party reflected in the title document as the legal owner of the property.”
“The aim of the Community Development Council Vouchers Scheme is primarily to support Singaporeans in addressing cost of living issues. Hence, the focus of the scheme is to support Singaporeans in their daily expenses, such as daily necessities like food and groceries, and boost the businesses of heartland merchants and hawkers, rather than to subsidise all goods and services to residents. Nevertheless, arts-related businesses in the heartlands can apply to join the scheme and be considered on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the People's Association also provides subsidised arts-related courses and programmes for residents in the heartlands.”
“Smoking at home is generally permitted. A claim can be made under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) for cases of smoking at home where the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour's enjoyment of his or her home. The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) is not bound by the formal rules of evidence. CDRT will take into consideration evidence that is relevant to establishing the claim or proving the breach of an order. Some examples of evidence that might be presented to the CDRT were previously given in response to a Parliamentary Question on 18 February 2022. [Please refer to "Proceedings under Section 4 of Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 for Cases of Smoking Near Balconies or Windows in Homes", Official Report, 18 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue 49, Oral Answers to Questions section.] Ultimately, CDRT will assess the evidence holistically to determine if a claim is proven on a balance of probabilities. The kind of evidence that will be helpful to CDRT is relevant, credible, reliable and sufficient to persuade the Court. Members of the public who have doubts about how to present their case in CDRT may wish to seek legal advice, or approach Pro Bono SG's various Community Legal Clinics.”
“The Football Association of Singapore (FAS) and its venue partner Kallang Alive Sport Management (KASM) had ensured that the National Stadium (NST) was booked and made available to the Singapore national football team for the full duration of the ASEAN Football Federation (AFF) Mitsubishi Electric Cup 2024. This was based on the original dates of the competition being fixed from 23 November 2024 to 21 December 2024. This was announced in February 2024. Had this schedule been kept to, the Singapore national football team would have been able to play at NST at every home game. However, the dates were subsequently changed by AFF in August 2024, shortly before the start of the tournament. By then, based on the original dates, two other major events had already been confirmed for late December 2024 and early January 2025 at NST. Contractual commitments had been made and tickets for one of them had gone on sale since July 2024. These are large-scale events and time is needed to prepare the venue ahead of the event. Despite this, KASM checked if it would be possible to nonetheless accommodate the hosting of the football matches at NST along with these two events. This is due to the time required for pitch preparation and event set-up. However, it was assessed to be not logistically possible. Consequently, FAS had to find an alternative venue at Jalan Besar Stadium for Singapore's semi-final home match on 26 December 2024. To enable more Singaporeans to cheer on the Lions together, the People's Association and HomeTeamNS broadcasted both semi-final matches live at 14 community clubs and centres and HomeTeamNS venues. Fans also watched these matches live on Mediacorp's free-to-air Channel 5.”
“The People's Association (PA) currently leases the community site at Petal Gardens from the Housing and Development Board to run regular community activities for residents at this site. PA maintains and upkeeps these facilities at Petal Gardens, ensuring they remain accessible and in good condition for residents' use. A tender for the cyclical maintenance and improvement of the facilities at Petal Gardens, including the futsal court, was published on 16 December 2024. It is intended to complete the works by Q1 2026. The current arrangement has been effective, with Petal Gardens and other community sites under PA's management being well-utilised for regular activities for residents. PA will continue to ensure that the facilities at Petal Gardens are well-maintained and that community activities are available and accessible to all Eunos residents.”
“There are no plans to observe the 10th anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's death. This year marks the 60th anniversary of Singapore's Independence. SG60 is an opportunity for us to reaffirm and reflect on our shared values, the same values that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our founding generation of leaders lived by and fought for and commit ourselves to continue to build a better Singapore together.”
“The Singapore Art Museum (SAM) plans to remain at Tanjong Pagar Distripark in the near future. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth will continue to work closely with SAM to ensure continuity in their operations and programming as the area develops.”
“The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is exploring options for the use of the former St Joseph's Institution Building and former Catholic High School building, for possible arts and heritage uses. MCCY is not ready to announce the plans yet but will share more details when the study is completed.”
“Under the Co-operative Societies Act, the Co-operative Societies Liquidation Account (CSLA) may be utilised generally for the furtherance of co-operative principles and for the benefit of the co-operative societies (co-ops), such as provision of training grants. Most recently, the CSLA is used to fund the Empowering Communities Fund, which aims to empower co-ops to drive community initiatives and projects to assist and support vulnerable communities and for co-ops to do their part to complement the Government's efforts in strengthening Singapore's social compact.”
“For all Community Clubs (CCs), the People's Association (PA) maintains a periodic Upgrading and/or Cyclical Maintenance Programme to keep our CCs well-maintained, functional and fit-for-purpose. Eunos CC was selected for upgrading in 2023 under this programme. A tender for upgrading works was called in September 2022. The scope of works included, the enhancement of existing spaces and also partial demolition and construction of a new four-storey block, which included a rooftop basketball court and extension of the multi-purpose hall with a new foyer. In anticipation of the impending upgrading works, Eunos CC was closed. However, the tender bids for the upgrading works were returned at a substantially higher amount than had been expected. This was due in part to the increased construction costs immediately post-COVID and other factors. After an assessment, it was decided that it would not be prudent to proceed with the upgrading works at that time. Instead, in consultation with the Grassroots Advisor, PA decided to scale down the works to only essential ones, at a lower cost, and defer the other larger items to a later date. The intention, subject to exigencies, is to complete these works and reopen the CC by Q4 2025 or early 2026. In the period of time since the closure of Eunos CC in September 2022, the Eunos Cultural Centre has been used to serve residents' needs and hosting regular community activities, events and programmes. This will continue until Eunos CC is reopened.”
“I am not sure if it is expensive legal counsel, but legal counsel. Yes, we will work with professional bodies, trade associations, organisations and various business associations to make sure that this is something that is on their radar, in their frame of mind. We will also, of course, work with the insolvency professionals. As you know, there are about 150 to 160 odd insolvency professionals. They would be the ones who perform the role of the Restructuring Advisers. We will work through these different mediums and forum to get the message across. But I also want to emphasise that, as I have said, this is a refinement of SIP 1.0. It is not as if it is a completely new creature. We have taken what we thought would work, modified it, and now, this is SIP 2.0 about four or five years on from the original SIP. So, it is something that has already been socialised with the relevant MSCs and business communities. But we will take further steps to enhance it, should there be a need to. 12.30 pm”
“Finally, to Assoc Prof Lim's point about personal bankruptcy and the Debt Repayment Scheme, he would appreciate that this is not within the scope of this Bill. Nonetheless, the points are well made. I want to assure Assoc Prof Lim that this is something that my Ministry has already started looking into. We understand the points that he has made. We have in fact started work on this, consulted, internally, some stakeholders before going public subsequently. It is an issue that we are studying and we will come back to this House in due course. Sir, the simplified regime proposed in this Bill is designed to provide tailor-made insolvency processes for smaller companies. As I said, this adds to and does not take away the options that are currently available in the IRDA for all companies – big, small, MSC or otherwise – and whatever is the threshold of the debt for that matter. We believe that this Bill strengthens Singapore's restructuring and insolvency regime by giving additional options to support companies through financial distress. Besides benefiting stakeholders of the affected companies, this, we believe, will support the broader economy by facilitating the reallocation of resources towards more productive businesses. With that, Mr Speaker, I seek to move.”
“We put that framework and formula in – and I think Mr Parekh asked to give examples – because what is false and misleading in the context of a statement may well differ from case to case. They may differ in the context of one type of business or another or one form of representation or another. We wanted to keep it situational and contextual, so that the Court has the ability to evaluate, based holistically on the circumstances of each case, whether it is false or misleading in that particular circumstance. The Court will also determine the applicable penalties to be imposed in the context of sentencing discretion, which is not unusual; while the Government will consider the circumstances of cases, including rectification by companies, before deciding whether to prosecute. On Mr Parekh's concerns about digital filings and notifications, SIP 2.0 does not introduce any new processes that are not already part of the current SIP. As I mentioned earlier, publishing notifications on the Official Receiver's website already exists under the current SIP. While this process will be enhanced for the convenience of Restructuring Advisers and liquidators under SIP 2.0, significant digital infrastructure will not be required for that. Before I conclude, let me also make two assurances. One, to Mr Parekh, my Ministry will monitor the implementation of SIP 2.0 and, in due course, to his point about further education, work with the SME community on the features of SIP 2.0 and review how to partner industry stakeholders to provide better assistance downstream, if necessary. As I mentioned to Assoc Prof Lim, we will also continue to monitor the efficacy of the thresholds and the framework that we put in and make adjustments where necessary.”
“To Mr Parekh's point on conflict of interest, Restructuring Advisers are professionals and they must deal with this issue in the course of their work, as they do all the time. In fact, as Mr Parekh knows, it is one topic that comes up from time to time. The introduction of SIP 2.0 does not take away that obligation to evaluate their personal position relative to any conflict of interest that they might have. Only licensed insolvency practitioners who are chartered or public accountants can be Restructuring Advisers. They are bound by their licensing conditions and regulated by their respective accountancy professional bodies. I think we all know that if they do not act professionally, complaints can be made and the Official Receiver or the Licensing Officer or the professional bodies can look into that. In addition, the law provides for the company to appoint Restructuring Advisers and does not restrict the companies to only one such appointment. In appropriate cases, the company may appoint a new Adviser but obviously, the company will have to balance that against the increase in time and cost that might bring about. Next, Mr Parekh asked about the scope of the offences in the Bill. Like those in other laws, they will be determined by the Courts based on established principles. This includes the new section 72E(4), which is materially identical to the existing section 72E(5). We are not changing the threshold or, in fact, the substantive ingredients behind the offences proposed in section 72E(4). Based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, the Courts will determine whether a specific statement is "false or misleading in a material particular".”
“We felt that this would balance the interests of the parties, moving from a 90-day blanket to a 30-day blanket plus if you need more time, a further 30 days, so 60 days in total. One further point to Assoc Prof Lim is that this period will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation as set out in clause 20 of the Bill. So, if we find, as this evolves that it is actually insufficient time, we can make adjustments along the way quite easily. Mr Parekh sought clarifications on various points. I think I have addressed some of them, so I will deal with the rest of Mr Parekh's considerations. First, we made the eligibility criteria for SIP 2.0 simpler and more flexible so that more companies can participate. We moved from defining the eligibility from "Are you an MSC?" – in other words, looking at the identity of the applicant – to "Are you owing $2 million or less?", focusing on the nature of the insolvency at hand. The key consideration is that the insolvency should be straightforward and not something that is mired in complexity or disputes. Depending on the circumstances, some types of companies that Mr Parekh has mentioned may be eligible for SIP 2.0. He mentioned a company may have complex ownership structures or international operations. But for those companies, if the circumstances surrounding the particular debt is straightforward and it is $2 million or under, then SIP 2.0 could apply. For more complicated cases – cross-border elements, disputes that are contentious, fraud, wrongdoing, fraud with disputes between parties, maybe challenges between creditors for priority and so on – then the non-simplified process is still available and in fact, would be more suitable.”
“We will evaluate the efficacy of the notice and make changes where appropriate. The other, of course, as I said in my opening speech, if there is a process of procedural irregularity or defect, the party affected by that under the SDRP says, "Look, I wasn't aware there was a notice and now I find myself bound by the SDRP", that individual creditor can apply to Court. One of the grounds of relief, as I stated, is process irregularity, which includes notice. Next, let me deal with the length of the moratorium period. I think all three Members spoke about that. I want to emphasise that, as I said in my opening speech, it has gone from 90 days, to 30 plus 30. Let me explain the rationale behind this. First, these cases are self-selected and scoped. They are simplified, straightforward and ought to be dealt with quickly. I also mentioned in my speech that by and large, in many of these processes, one expects – in fact, it happens in practice – the Restructuring Adviser to already engage the parties, the stakeholders, the creditors, in particular, on the proposed plan and the scheme. Once that happens, you will trigger the process, you start the 30 days for you to work out the details, you might get a further extension if you are not able to satisfy that and then within this framework, you must find a solution. We believe this to be a proper balance between the fact that you are dealing with a $2-million debt, probably in as much as these are MSCs, you probably also find that the countervailing parties, the creditors themselves, are probably also MSCs or perhaps individuals and there is an interest in ensuring that their rights are also not compromised. Because during the moratorium period, you are not able to enforce any of your rights against the debtor.”
“In particular, if there is complexity or if there is a suggestion that there is wrongdoing or fraud, the company may be transited into a non-simplified insolvency process. If such fraud or wrongdoing is discovered only after the company has entered into simplified winding up, in other words, midstream and whilst the process has already started, then the liquidator can likewise transit the company into a non-simplified process. So, it facilitates the transfer between the schemes quite seamlessly. Mr Wee, Assoc Prof Lim and I think Mr Parekh also talked about notifications. Let me say that as it is, notifications under the current SIP are already being published on the Official Receiver's website. Only one notice must also be published in at least one local English daily newspaper, namely, the notice of acceptance into the scheme itself under the current section 250J(c) of the IRDA. To Assoc Prof Lim's point about notices, and I think he made an appeal whether we could consider other forms, at the end of the day, it is not our intention to deprive creditors and other stakeholders of notice. We felt that this would be the best balance between costs, time taken and the burden on the companies seeking the simplified process and notification. In our feedback sessions with the industry, we felt that they were already familiar with the current process – publication on the website and so on. Having this as the sole mode of publication will reduce costs and not at the same time cause undue concern to stakeholders. To Assoc Prof Lim's point, I will make two further responses. First, we will continue to study this. As I said, it is not the intention to deprive proper parties with stakeholder interest or any interest from knowing that this has commenced or has started.”
“Broadly speaking, and I say this in the context of the fact that we have amended the requirements from just an MSC alone to looking at the nature of the insolvency itself, I would say that larger companies with a more sophisticated set-up and larger debt sizes where you have complexity in disputes across different jurisdictions would typically not be suitable for such a simplified process. For all companies eligible for this SIP 2.0, there will be no changes to the existing priority of debts in section 203 of the IRDA. This applies to both simplified as well as non-simplified processes. The priority scheme amongst creditors, between creditors, will remain unchanged. To summarise, in a winding up, the costs and expenses of liquidation are paid out first, followed by employees' claims for wages or salary. Unsecured debts rank lower in terms of priority. This was the position when we first introduced the SIP as well and will continue to be so in SIP 2.0. What is envisaged to change under SIP 2.0, however, is that we believe, as I mentioned earlier, the remaining pie for distribution is expected to be larger. This is because the costs and expenses of the liquidation should reduce. As such, rather than employees or creditors having to feel disadvantaged from this, if this is made out, then in fact, the distribution at the end of the process would be expected to be higher. At the same time, various safeguards exist to prevent potential abuse as the directors' statement will facilitate more efficient entry into simplified winding up. For example, the nominated liquidator has the ultimate responsibility for assessing whether this company satisfies the eligibility requirements or not.”
“Because sometimes, and Members might know that I have spent some time in practice doing restructuring, we see a very viable, very good restructuring plan, but it takes time. It takes a lot of effort. And at the end of the day, a lot of the cost would eat up the balance assets of the company after the restructuring is completed. We hope that in these cases, for the MSCs in particular, that when they avail themselves of this framework, there will be bigger savings in time and costs. Therefore, resulting in better returns for creditors. With this in mind, let me address some of the specific points that Mr Wee, Assoc Prof Lim as well as Mr Parekh had raised. As I said, I thank Members for the carefully considered speeches. To Mr Wee's point, the proposed framework seeks to balance the various considerations, providing a streamlined insolvency process and also, we understand, the interests and expectations of the stakeholders. I think it is important, while this is streamlined, for Members to know that we are not compromising on rights that creditors will have and should have in any insolvency. As mentioned in my opening speech, public agencies and private sector stakeholders have also been consulted widely as part of the design process. We will continue to engage them on an ongoing basis to ensure that this framework that we have proposed in SIP 2.0 remains accessible and evolves with the times to keep up with the needs of corporate entities in financial distress. By taking into account industry feedback and streamlining the requirements and processes, we have also sought to reduce the cost and time burdens on companies. The liability threshold of $2 million in many ways acts as a proxy to right-size the kind of companies that can use or benefit from the SIP.”
“So, my first point to many of the issues raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as well as by Mr Neil Parekh and Mr Don Wee, is that the parties have a choice. They can assess for themselves. In fact, they should assess for themselves how suitable their case is for a SIP 2.0 process and decide whether they fall under this framework. Otherwise, the entire framework in the IRDA is completely available to any of these companies as well. So, it is not as if they are locked into or pigeonholed into having to select SIP 2.0, if they qualify as an MSC. That is the first point I would make. Secondly, to address Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point about whether the SIP was "pressing", I think that was the word that the Member chose to use. The numbers speak to the cases that have come under SIP 1.0 in the immediate post-COVID-19 enactment of this Bill. But as I said, this is a choice that we are offering as an add-on to a corporate entity to decide whether they fit within this profile and, if so, whether they want to avail themselves of a shorter, more simplified process. Effectively, it is giving more options rather than taking away or requiring some companies to fit within this framework without having a choice. The third point I would make is that we see, therefore, value in having insolvency processes that are in the context of these cases, simpler, more straightforward, more streamlined, easier to get entry into, not so document-intensive and allows the companies to decide: I fit within this framework, let us get onto this quickly so that I can simplify, reduce cost as well as use up less time to exit a failed business. So, we envisage that SIP 2.0 will have this impact and overall, in these cases, translate into better returns for creditors, which is one of the key aims.”
“Sir, I thank the three Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and for their considered speeches as well as suggestions. I thought I would start with a few broad overarching points which underpin the proposed amendments – overarching in the sense that these are the purposes and the broad principles that underpin why we have decided to introduce SIP 2.0. They also answer some of the points that Members have raised. First, I think we all agree, it is not economically viable or desirable for companies that are not operating, dormant for a period of time and not financially sustainable, to remain on the books. Technically alive, but, effectively, dormant and not operating. These amendments seek to lower the threshold for these companies to find it easier to exit. And, in some ways, there will be individual personalities behind these companies as well. So, the simplified process allows them to get out of a business that has failed, through perhaps no fault of theirs, in a straightforward manner and get on with a different business; an exit that is fair to all creditors, and find the business transactions under a different model and perhaps, one which may be more viable. So, it also helps the individuals behind each of these corporate entities. Second, we all agree that, in reality, the practical challenges and realities facing smaller companies in financial distress would be very different from the larger companies. Here, I want to emphasise a few points. First, we are dealing with a scenario which is a small subset in terms of the type of cases. Although I said, at the start, that MSCs form the bulk of our enterprise landscape, but the type of cases that we are dealing with is a subset of the broader ones.”
“sg, Inter-Religious Organisation, Roses of Peace, hash.peace, Dialogue Centre, Interfaith Youth Circle and others. The National Youth Council (NYC) has also developed "Beneath the Surface", a conversation toolkit that is part of a series to facilitate meaningful and respectful conversations on complex issues, including race and religion. With the toolkits, NYC has worked with polytechnics, self-help groups and civil society groups to organise more than 50 workshops, reaching out to more than 3,000 youths. In the digital space, online platforms, like Muslim.SG, collaborate with influencers to disseminate positive content to Muslim youths. This includes promoting messages of peace and tolerance and the importance of seeking knowledge from credible sources. MUIS also works with the Asatizah Youth Network to provide safe spaces online for youth to engage in. There are also efforts to deepen appreciation of our diversity, such as artist Shabir Sulthan's "Project Zero" podcast series to foster greater appreciation of the influence of Singapore's cultural diversity on local music. We encourage the community to continue to partner MCCY and leverage platforms, such as the Harmony Fund and the Harmony Circles, to organise initiatives to promote cohesion and harmony in Singapore.”
“The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) actively partners community stakeholders to organise programmes and initiatives to promote social cohesion and strengthen community resilience. These include initiatives in the youth and digital spaces. At the community level, the 93 Racial and Religious Harmony Circles promote racial and religious harmony in every constituency through initiatives, such as heritage trails, interfaith talks and festive celebrations, that bring different groups together. During the Racial and Religious Harmony Month in July this year, the Harmony Circles organised more than 70 events across Singapore, reaching over 98,000 people. In October 2024, the Harmony Circles organised the Peace and Harmony Dialogue, which saw members of different community groups coming together to witness an interfaith prayer for peace in the Middle East by the Inter-Religious Organisation as well as an interfaith dialogue on peace and harmony. Among our youth, MCCY actively supports community initiatives to promote interfaith understanding and dialogue. In September 2024, MCCY and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore co-organised the "Interreligious Youth with Pope Francis" dialogue at the Catholic Junior College. Pope Francis later described the dialogue as a "model of fraternity" and commended Singapore youths' capacity for interfaith dialogue. In the same month, Al-Falah mosque and Muslim.SG, an online platform set up by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), organised the Mercy & Justice Youth Interfaith Dialogue, which saw youth of diverse backgrounds engaging in conversations on building a more compassionate and just society. Similar youth outreach efforts have been organised by community groups, such as OnePeople.”
“Arts entities may transition from for-profit to not-for-profit status for a variety of reasons. Depending on the circumstances and what advice in relation to the transition might be needed, we assess each on a case-by-case basis. This is because the reasons for transition, its business structures and interests of the stakeholders will vary from organisation to organisation. The complexity of legal and other form of advice will also vary accordingly. In addition, the Government also provides support for non-profit arts organisations that are looking to become a registered charity or attain Institution of a Public Character (IPC) status through the National Arts Council's Support for the Arts (stART) Fund, which provides funding towards the associated legal costs. In Financial Year 2022, five arts organisations attained IPC status with support from the stART Fund. They are: Traditional Arts Centre, Art Photography Centre, Resound Collective, Siong Leng Musical Association and Paper Monkey Theatre. Arts groups that are registered charities and IPCs can tap on resources, such as the Charities Capability Fund, to enhance productivity, operational efficiency, governance and management capabilities. This helps build up and strengthen their capabilities to fulfil their regulatory requirements.”
“PlayPan took over Peace Centre from October 2023 to January 2024, just prior to the demolition of the building. This was a private arrangement between PlayPan and the owners of Peace Centre, which took advantage of the circumstances for creative collaboration before demolition works at the location. We encourage such private collaborations, where members of society work together to create a more vibrant and distinctive city in a variety of different ways. Government agencies have been working with interested private venue owners to activate their spaces and on creative collaborations. Some of these venues are strata malls. There are some examples. For instance, as part of Singapore Design Week, DesignSingapore Council partnered PLUS Collaboratives for the Nostalgia Play installation at Far East Plaza. Fortune Centre also featured the “Crossroads: Random Access Memory” digital art showcase at this year’s Singapore Art Week. We will continue to support the use of such spaces in the appropriate circumstances, which can bring art into public spaces in order to enhance the accessibility of the arts. We should add that our efforts to extend the reach of the arts go beyond commercial spaces. For instance, in the last three months, since the launch of ArtsEverywhere@CDC, Government agencies brought the performing arts to 15 community locations across five Community Development Councils and engaged over 20,000 audience members in various locations in the heartlands. This reflects our commitment to expand access to the arts.”
“The corporatisation exercise of NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Limited, now known as Income Insurance Limited (Income), including the circumstances in which a Ministerial exemption from section 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act (CSA) was granted, has been discussed extensively in Parliament in the course of a Ministerial Statement and a debate on an amendment Bill on 14 and 16 October 2024. Members can refer to the record of proceedings in the Hansard for the details. [Please refer to (a) "Pre-conditional Voluntary General Offer by Allianz for Income Insurance", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Ministerial Statements section; and (b) "Insurance (Amendment) Bill", Official Report, 16 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 144, Second Reading Bills section.] The corporatisation exercise as well as the Ministerial exemption from section 88 of the CSA was granted to Income following, and on the basis of, a series of discussions and representations made by Income to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. Corporatisation was intended, amongst other objectives, to give Income operational flexibility and a greater ability to build up a strong capital base. As a licensed insurer, Income continues to be subject to regulatory oversight. For instance, Income must obtain the Monetary Authority of Singapore's approval to cancel its insurance licence if it intends to cease its business, or transfer its business to another insurer, or reduce its share capital.”
“In our previous reply to Mr Louis Ng on the Parliamentary Question regarding the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme, or OHAS, at the 14 October 2024 Parliament Sitting, we highlighted that the OHAS was scoped to overseas humanitarian assistance, in order to strike a balance between encouraging overseas giving while ensuring that our local charity sector continues to receive the necessary support. Overseas humanitarian assistance is also a cause that resonates with many Singaporeans. We have observed generous donations towards overseas emergency humanitarian assistance causes. Singaporeans gave generously to recent crises, such as the relief efforts following the devasting earthquake in Türkiye and Syria last year, as well as the outpour of donations in response to the tragedy arising from the Israel-Hamas conflict. Singapore Red Cross Society raised over $3 million in under a week to support relief efforts in the aftermath of the Türkiye and Syria earthquake. Similarly, the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation Limited raised over $8.1 million in under a month to support those affected by the Israel-Hamas conflict. Both registered charities had valid foreign fund-raising permits issued by the Commissioner of Charities for the period of their fund-raising appeals held last year. The Government will assess the OHAS at the end of its four-year pilot. We will also continue to monitor the giving trends closely to balance our encouragement for overseas giving to relevant causes, while ensuring that our local charity sector continues to receive the necessary support it needs.”
“We want to do this to ensure that there is a framework, people know what the framework is, but at the same time are able to practise self-moderation, knowing what the framework is, and having the ability themselves to self-help, to sort out their own problems. Which is why I have emphasised, whether it is the CDRT or the CRU, we do not want to be overly intrusive and we want to retain a balance and discretion and a responsibility on the part of neighbours to live in harmony and to sort out their own issues from time to time. Fundamentally, we want to strengthen trust amongst our communities. We can then elevate this level of harmony to strengthen our national multicultural inter-faith harmony as well. That really was the thinking behind a very detailed root and branch review of the CDMF. Sir, I believe I have addressed almost all, if not all, of the questions raised. With that, Sir, I beg to move. 6.36 pm”
“These will kick in after the Bill is effective because you do not want to introduce a provision halfway through a process when the parties are already engaged in the system. Mr Derrick Goh asked for us to monitor the CDRT's effectiveness. We will certainly do so and continue to make enhancements as may be necessary. Finally, Ms Tan asked about the proposed enhancements and when they will be operationalised. I think Ms Sim Ann said the first half of next year and that is the plan as well. We intend to do so by the first half of next year. Sir, let me now conclude. I want to start this conclusion by thanking the team of officers across all three Ministries who have worked over several years in coming up with this piece of legislation. It has not been straightforward, mainly because it is not just dealing with a process or a procedural issue, but you are really deeply intervening with two neighbours, the way in which they live their lives, the way in which they conduct themselves as neighbours. And so, we had to be very careful about striking the right balance, as I emphasised in my speech earlier. But at the same time, we realised that disputes between neighbours, sometimes they have a religious undertone, sometimes there is an ethnic undertone, and if left unchecked, they can escalate very quickly. It is very easy to label these disputes as one type or another and that is really unhelpful, but those labels sometimes stick. This then frays our relations, undermines our trust and disrupts our social cohesion. That is not something that we want to see. In reality, while this is a Bill that deals with the process, sets up a framework, deals with mediation, I really think that this is a Bill that is aimed squarely at trying to enhance our social cohesion in Singapore.”
“As I said in my opening speech, if a party unreasonably refuses to attend mediation, even before the Mediation Direction kicks in, when your neighbour offers to go to mediation and you unreasonably refuse to attend, leading to protracted proceedings, in such a situation, the court might then consider that it is appropriate to order costs consequences to be visited upon the party refusing to attend. Or sometimes there could be a flagrant disregard of agreed obligations, for example, in a breach of a settlement agreement, or there is a dishonest conduct of the proceedings, withholding evidence or making false statements and so on. In such a case, we wanted to give the court hearing the case flexibility in deciding where costs should follow the event and to make the appropriate costs orders. I want to assure Ms Lim that it is not CRU's intention to seek costs against the resident. So, there will be no cost recovery as such, as she had put it in her speech. Ms Jessica Tan asked if the CDRT enhancements will apply to existing CDRT cases. This really depends on the enhancement in question. As I said, we have a pilot in the CRU but not a pilot in the other cases. But where possible, we have tried to ensure that the existing cases will benefit from the enhancements in this case. But there are some cases where you are halfway through the process. If you are halfway through a CDRT process and it is unfair to then impose, after you have started the case, amendments that have been brought in subsequently, then we will not do so. So, in fact, the Bill provides for it to be applicable only from the time the Act is operational. Ms Tan might want to look at the interim arrangements, the Interim Orders clause, as well as the registration of settlement agreements provision.”
“And it may well hinder parties from wanting to come forward to enter into a mediation agreement. Requiring consent makes also for a more transparent process. It crucially helps to preserve the trust between the settling parties. If both parties agree, then it can be registered and both will go in with their eyes open, rather than having it automatic. This process of having consent also aligns with our position in the Mediation Act. Under the Mediation Act, any party outside of community disputes who reaches a mediated settlement agreement, also registers it by consent under the Mediation Act. Miss Rachel Ong asked about the agreements between a resident and a Government agency. The CDMF is concerned with disputes between neighbours and we do not expect a Government agency to be a party to such a dispute. Mr Dennis Tan asked about the transfer provision, whether lawyers will be allowed in CDRT cases that are transferred to the Magistrates' Courts or the District Courts. The short point is that under section 20, the reason for the transfer is because a party may well file a claim that includes claims or allegations that fall outside of the CDRT's jurisdiction. So, in such a case, the CDRT court or judge will decide to transfer the case to the appropriate Magistrate's or District Court. In such cases, the ordinary civil process will apply and both parties may engage legal representation if they wish. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the cost provision that we are trying to put in. We did not have this previously available. So, now we are introducing it to align with the usual cost practices. The intention is like other cost orders in court. It is at the court's discretion to reflect the fairness and equity of the particular situation.”
“At the same time, Mr Yip Hon Weng expressed the view that expectations must be balanced and realistic, and Mr Mark Lee referred to the need for a framework that provides clarity for the landlords. The different speeches on this topic itself illustrates the competing tensions that we see and we have tried to adopt a calibrated approach. We are aware that there is a range of profiles of landlords – some are more cooperative than others, some are more hands-off, some may even be living overseas, as Mr Yip highlighted. We will take on board Mr Yip's suggestion when we operationalise these enhancements and provide clear guidelines to landlords to help them understand the obligations – a point that Mr Mark Lee made as well. Really, the last thing we want is to inadvertently create disputes out of this process when we are trying to resolve an underlying neighbour dispute between two parties. I believe Mr Dennis Tan suggested introducing an additional factor on subletting by having covenants imposed before allowing a landlord to rent out or to sublet. I think, as I have said, finding the right approach with the right balance is useful and we do not think at this stage, we want to impose or have an additional factor on the ability of a landlord to rent out as long as this process is in place. Mr Derrick Goh and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether mediated settlement agreements can be registered as a CDRT order by default instead of by consent. The short point is, we did look at this and we felt that requiring consent would give the best chance of improved outcomes. Because if every settlement agreement were automatically registered or had the same effect as a Court Order, this would change the complexion of mediation, which is consensual and amicable.”
“I touched on it in my opening speech, so I will just briefly respond. Today, if the tenant does not comply with the first order, the CDRT can already make the second order against the tenant called a special direction and at that stage, the landlord can be asked to put up a compliance bond and the landlord must ensure that the tenant complies with this second order. So, the enhancement that we are now making, adds on to this – it does not introduce anything that is new but adds on to this, by bringing that step forward – the compliance bond mechanism is now brought forward by one step and we set out a clearer process of how landlords will then be involved. If the landlord had been notified that his tenant is engaging in acts of nuisance and does not do anything and the matter is then taken to the CDRT, the CDRT can, at that stage, make a compliance order against the landlord together with the first order against the tenant. It just makes it faster, neater because you are now before the CDRT and we want to ensure that the landlord is aware that there is such a case happening, rather than to wait for one breach and then the next step before involving the landlord. So, we brought the landlord's bond upfront and at the first stage. The landlord must be given express notice of the tenant's actions and it is therefore not that the tenant or the landlord is unaware. In this context, I think Members will agree with me that the landlord really should not be sitting back and doing nothing. Inaction on the landlord's part, it does not gel with our philosophy of having a community-first approach that we are trying to foster. Miss Rachel Ong suggested that we enhance the deterrent effect of the compliance order.”
“CDRT judges play a proactive role in not just leading, but also guiding the proceedings. For example, the judge will pose questions to the claimant or respondents directly in order to elicit a position from them and also ask them, guide them, to provide certain pieces of evidence to support their claim. The CDRT is also not bound by the rules of evidence that ordinarily apply to court proceedings, so it can consider any evidence that points towards the source of interference, the type of interference or its intensity and surrounding circumstances. To alleviate the evidential difficulty, we have, as I have explained earlier, put in place processes to integrate upstream CRU findings so that we do not have to repeat the evidence gathering. We understand that despite all these, some users may still find the process to be daunting and complex and it is foreign to many parties to be engaged in an adjudicatory court process. So, detailed step-by-step guidance on the CDRT process has been made available on the judiciary's website. Members of the public can also approach the State Courts directly for process-related queries. And for those who wish to seek advice on their legal options, they can approach Pro Bono SG's various Community Legal Clinics. They will be very happy to advise on the options available as well as on the process. Sir, we have tried to simplify the process as much as possible, but I also hope that Members appreciate, ultimately, that the CDRT process is a formal court adjudicatory process and there needs to be some level of formality and also decorum accorded to the process. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee and Miss Rachel Ong asked about the enhancements we are making for tenant-occupied properties under the new section 10A.”
“The affected resident can also consider bringing the claim to the Strata Titles Board if the issue in question happens on strata title properties. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about CDRT data. Let me just share some data, but again, also, take it with a pinch of salt. From January 2016 to December 2019, an average of 88 CDRT claims were filed each year. From January 2020 to December 2023, that number went up to 205 CDRT claims each year. But I would caution against attributing the increase solely or primarily to just the COVID-19 pandemic. Hybrid work arrangements, work from home, could be one factor, but there may be a whole range of other factors that have contributed to this increase. For example, there could be greater awareness of the CDRT, with cases being reported in the news over time. For the four-year period of January 2020 to December 2023, 529 claims or 64% of total claims filed involved a complaint on excessive noise. Seventy-five claims or 9% of them, are involved a complaint on obstruction of place of residence and 67 claims or 8% of total claims are on excessive smoke. That was Mr Louis Ng's point. It is possible for a single claim to contain allegations on more than one type of unreasonable interference, but it is quite clear that the vast majority of claims revolve around excessive noise. Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Alex Yam spoke on simplifying the CDRT process. We agree and we have tried to do so in this Bill. CDRT processes have been designed to be simple and accessible for users, and claimants and respondents do not require legal knowledge to pursue or defend a claim. Applications are filed online using simplified forms. The forms are in plain English and they are accompanied by explanatory notes that guide users through the filing process.”
“Mr Mark Lee asked if the scope of what constitutes "unreasonable interference" in section 4(2) of the CDRA has been narrowed. Let me explain it this way. Although clause 3(f) of the Bill appears to introduce a new definition of "unreasonable interference", the Bill does not actually change the existing definition of "unreasonable interference" in section 4. The new definition inserted under clause 3(f) is a legislative drafting technique that merely makes it clear that the current definition in section 4 applies whenever the term unreasonable interference is used in the Act, especially in the new Part 2A. To be clear, the CDRT will have jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving the full range of acts and omissions that may cause unreasonable interference with a neighbour's enjoyment or use of place of residence. As for the CRU, for the reasons that I have set out earlier, and which Senior Minister of State Sim Ann has expanded on, CRU will focus its resources on severe neighbour noise and hoarding cases. So, when it comes to mediation, what I have explained earlier in mediation cases, we want it to be as broad as possible and give the unit as much flexibility as possible to determine what noise, what hoarding might be and what disamenity might be and the different constituent steps that might lead up to it, so that there is more flexibility for it to do its work, as I have explained in my opening speech. Mr Faisal Manap asked about whether disputes related to ceiling leakages can also be brought under this scheme. It is possible for the CDRT to hear such a dispute if there is evidence that the leakage stems from an act of unreasonable interference.”
“Mr Patrick Tay asked about the duration of treatment that can be ordered under the MTO. The specific duration of an MTO for any given case will, of course, depend on the context and the circumstances of the case, but it cannot exceed 36 months. As part of his report to the CDRT, the appointed psychiatrist will recommend the duration based on his professional judgement. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Alex Yam asked about individuals who are unable to afford CDRT-ordered assessment or treatment. I would say this to Members, psychiatric assessments ordered by the CDRT are conducted at no cost to the individual. I would also add that no Singaporean will be denied access to appropriate treatment due to his inability to pay. When the appointed psychiatrist does his assessment, he will also consider that individual's financial ability to pay for the treatment and this will be assessed against the available financial support measures, such as inpatient subsidies, MediShield Life, private health insurance and MediFund. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we can ensure compliance with mental health treatment ordered by the CDRT. The starting point is that the MTO will be regarded as a Court Order under the CDRT and must be complied with. On the ground, healthcare workers will of course do their best to support the individual in complying with these orders. In general, they will follow up with close case management monitoring and this is mainly through telephone calls or home visits to ensure that the patients attend their outpatient reviews and comply with the treatment regime including medication, and if need be, patients will be referred to other agencies and community outreach teams for further social support.”